Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 15

< Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Khajidha in topic On "by country" being the "preferred" disambiguation under NCTV
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Proposal: Episode titles - allow for extended disambiguation in cases where another element is an entry in a list article

Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

In Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Episode and character articles it says: Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which has its own page, disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element). I think the requirement for having its own page is too limiting and still causes unneeded ambiguity issues. A lot of times we decide that characters shouldn't have a stand-alone article, but they do have a an entry in a list article, some even have a pretty decent amount of information that would have passed as a stub or more if placed in a regular article. The cases that cause ambiguity are also the ones where the episodes are named after a character which then even makes this situation even more bizarre.

I propose that we change the wording from:

  • Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which has its own page, disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element).

To:

  • Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which has its own page or entry in a list article, disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element). (section in bold was added). --Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm still on the fence about this change. The recent move discussion at Talk:Rose (Doctor Who episode)#Requested move 7 February 2018 wasn't a clear success - and that was related to a very clearly major character with their own article. We could find that expanding the guideline to list entries may not be uncontroversial - especially if the characters (or other elements) are very minor - maybe even only appearing in the single episode for which they are named. I would suggest that, rather than adding "or entry in a list article", we could accomplish the same effect more simply by instead dropping the "which has its own page" restriction itself - making the line: Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show, disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element). But in any case, I think we might need to be very careful about making the change, and should perhaps try getting wider community input perhaps by running some of the examples given above through some RMs to gauge the level of acceptance. -- Netoholic @ 15:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Just noting that if the RM will be done before the change, then the current guideline will stand in the way, so not really a "fair" test... --Gonnym (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily – for example, if you do the "move", you can explain what you're trying to do in the RM summary, and you can explain that this is a "requested test cast". But if you do it that way, you may want to post notices here and in WT:TV to get a wider set of eyes on it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Netoholic talked about a RM not a BOLD move, unless I might be misunderstanding either of you. My point being with a RM that I won't be able to cite any guideline for why a move is correct and any opposes would actually have a guideline that does say that the conflict is only if there is another article. --Gonnym (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
          • No, I'm talking about you doing an RM. In the RM summary you can say, "The guideline currently says [X], but it's a problem because of [Y]. This is RM is a test case in order to gauge support for changing the guideline to [Z]." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Test RM can be found here. --Gonnym (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Giant Robo (OVA)#Requested move 5 December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Giant Robo (OVA)#Requested move 5 December 2018. This is a requested move looking to establish a consensus on how to name "OVA" series-type anime titles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Secret Story 1 (Portugal)#Requested move 5 December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Secret Story 1 (Portugal)#Requested move 5 December 2018 . This move request involves a proposal to use a new disambig tag for article titles not currently in use by WP:NCTV. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 19:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Advertisement/Commercials disambiguation

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is there a relevant guideline for television advertisement/commercials disambiguation? Is "(advertisement)" the accepted disambiguation? See America (advertisement), Aaron Burr (advertisement), Gathering Storm (advertisement), Lamp (advertisement), Lemmings (advertisement), The Life (advertisement), Strong (advertisement), 1984 (advertisement), The Force (advertisement) and Live for Now (Pepsi). --Gonnym (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If were going to do that, I'd argue is should be at "(TV advertisement)" – there are "advertisements" on radio and in other media as well – so "TV" needs to be specified. However, I'd be shocked that more than just handful of ad campaigns are actually notable enough to merit their own article! I haven't looked at these yet, but I'd bet that many (most?) of them should probably just be deleted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, a lot of these advertising campaigns extend to several media (for example, a TV commercial and associated magazine print ads that use the same slogan/imagery), making it not very appropriate for NCTV to handle alone. Wikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & Advertising is the place that would take the lead on this, but it looks like they aren't very active. I definitely don't like the idea of using (TV advertisement) due to the cross-platform nature of most of these... so I would bet that the most consistently concise method of disambiguation is the current (advertisement) or perhaps (<company name> advertisement) or (<product name> advertisement). -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Les Misérables (2018 TV series)#Article title instability

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Les Misérables (2018 TV series)#Article title instability. Should Les Misérables be disambiguated as (2018 TV series) or (2018 miniseries)? -- AlexTW 14:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I've already suggested what should be done here – hold an actual WP:RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
An RM should definitely be considered, once the article returns to its status quo so that an RM can continue unhindered and in the correct manner. -- AlexTW 14:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Big Brother (American and British) move discussions

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother 1 (UK)#Requested move 22 December 2018 . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother 1 (U.S.)#Requested move 22 December 2018 . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles disambig'ed with "documentary", etc.

Latest comment: 5 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

Looking at Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style, probably one of the last "systematic" issues we need to deal with is what to move articles disambiguated with "documentary", and "documentary series", etc. to. These can likely be resolved with one of more "mass" WP:Requested move proposals, but I'm not going to do that until we get some rough consensus here first.

Here is the list of articles like this:

I have not looked closely at these, but I think we would agree that if it's a single-edition "documentary" then it should be moved to "TV program/TV programme"?

Multi-episode documentary TV shows are trickier: If they track a single topic (e.g. the history of the Roman Empire) sequentially, then they probably qualify as "TV series". But if they just cover random unrelated subjects episode-to-episode (like a newsmagazine), then they should be moved "TV program/TV programme".

Do we all agree with these propositions?... Once that is determined, then we can start thinking about drafting some WP:RM proposals. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

A documentary is a historical look at a topic. It is not a 'TV program' or a 'TV series', it is a documentary. Documentaries are a factual study of a topic. Not only not broken, but the descriptor is correct. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
No, we do not all agree with these propositions. I agree with Randy as above; "documentary" needs to be accepted as an allowable disambiguator. NCTV is, as it always has been, a guideline, not a be-all-end-all policy; if "documentary" fits those articles better, then that is what they should use. -- /Alex/21 00:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We don't disambiguate "by genre" in all but very, very rare cases. Period. That has pretty much been the consensus in NCTV for quite some time. It's why we eliminated disambiguation using things like "telenovela" and "anime". Any of that would be fine as a redirect, but not as the primary article title... Quite aside from that, pretty much every single one of these is currently incompletely disambiguated even if you think disambig'ing by genre is acceptable (e.g. "documentary what?!" – doc. "film"? doc. "radio show"? etc.) – i.e. each of these would need to be at "documentary TV series" or "documentary TV program". So, no – the current situation with these is completely unacceptable, no matter how you look at it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Your personal view is noted on what "we" do. Clearly there's a precedent for this disambiguator. A documentary is "a film or television or radio programme that provides a factual report on a particular subject"; this gives far more detail as to what the article is about than just "TV series". The disambiguators of "documentary series" or "documentary program", however, would, in my view, be completely acceptable. -- /Alex/21 00:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Still not good enough – it would have to be "documentary TV series" or "documentary TV program", for the reasons I stated above (i.e. because "documentary" radio programs, films, and even web series also all exist). But I suspect the resistance to disambig'ing by genre still exists, so let's see what other editors have to say. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)]
The Ken Burns documentaries seem to have been named 'film' or 'TV miniseries' some time ago, so I guess I missed this trend. I know there have been RMs on 'documentaries' but I thought those were individual cases and not that the term is no longer used. That's too bad, as 'documentaries' and 'miniseries' don't seem compatible, apples and oranges, dramatic presentations compared to historical, well, documentaries. So these are what's left? I'd personally keep them at 'documentary', although The Six Wives... seems to be a dramatic presentation. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I like (documentary) as a disambiguator. The genre doesn't neatly fit TV series or TV program/programme, and using (documentary TV program) seems redundant when the one word documentary tells a reader concisely what the article is about. Why the need to add TV program or program at all? -- Whats new?(talk) 01:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Geez, do people even read what I write?! "(documentary)" is insufficient disambiguation because documentaries exist in other media too – e.g. documentary films. There's nothing that says "(documentary)" = "TV" (only). It's the same reason that we need "TV series", as just "series" would be insufficient disambiguation for exactly the same reason. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: The two The Six Wives... cases are the one pairing that I'm likely to take to an WP:RM regardless of how this discussion goes, as both of The Six Wives... series are incorrectly named currently. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I did read it, I just don't agree with you. Unless there are two types of documentaries with the same title, it is unnecessary disambiguation. As far as I know, there aren't articles for a documentary film, album, etc. So documentary is fine. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree that NCTV supports the default use of "documentary" as a disambiguator. Documentary is not different than anime or telenovela in this regards in that they give a more concise disambiguator of what the article is, however those were decided against and even added to the guideline itself. If documentary was ever a valid option, it would have been added. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
As Alex said earlier, NCTV is just a guideline. Not everything has to follow it, and not everything will neatly align with it. These docos are examples of not being a neat fit -- Whats new?(talk) 11:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
And, again, I want to reiterate that I strongly oppose allowing just "(documentary)" as a disambiguator in any case – if we're to do that it has to be "(documentary TV program)"/"(documentary TV series)". "Documentary" is not like "telenovela" or "anime" – with the latter there's no ambiguity as to their medium, but with "documentary" there absolutely is ambiguity as to which medium (e.g. film, TV , radio) is being referred to... But I agree with Gonnym (and Netoholic?) that there should be no special "carve out" of NCTV to allow disambiguating "by genre" just for documentaries. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, again, I don't see a problem with it and would strongly oppose any moves from (documentary) to (TV program) or similar, per Randy and Alex's concerns at the very start of this discussion -- Whats new?(talk) 23:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No change - Documentaries are not some special class of program. Interviewers sit down with experts/witnesses/etc and ask questions, just like is done on news or talk shows. Nature cinematographers stage animal shots to get the desired behavior on film. Editors whittle down raw footage to fit a narrative arc. Voiceovers/hosts still follow a script. Some like The Six Wives of Henry VIII even have a full cast of actors. Documentaries are just another storytelling device - they are entertainment. They fit perfectly fine and consistent within the existing NCTV and WP:NCFILM guidelines and do not need a special exception. The reason I bring up NCFILM is that some of these certainly, upon inspection, are films (short films even) that were broadcast on television rather than being "television programs". Certainly some are made-by-television, for-television documentaries that are "TV programs" (most of these are likely to have some origin within a TV news show). Others are presented in a sequential, narrative manner that makes them "TV series". -- Netoholic @ 11:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Netoholic: When you say "no change", do you mean "no change to NCTV" regarding documentaries? Or do you mean "no change to the titles of the articles" I listed above?... Because my original point in opening this topic is figuring out what titles those articles listed above should be moved to. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
      • No change to NCTV is needed. I'm not a fan of pre-RMs like this. We know there are some vocal proponents of a new disambiguator for these, but they are time and time again shown to not have strong consensus on their side for creating it. I'd suggesting just starting the RMs, perhaps the obvious (film) ones first, but no need for mass moves or flooding the RM page, no rush. -- Netoholic @ 16:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) (season 1)#Requested move 6 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) (season 1)#Requested move 6 January 2019 . Continued discussion on "double parenthetically disambiguated" articles – still trying to work toward a "permanent solution" for these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation for anthology-style shows

Latest comment: 5 years ago40 comments6 people in discussion

Recently, there has been some confusion in page move discussions about the proper application of the (TV series) vs (TV program) as it applies to anthology documentary shows. Two recent cases are Taken (documentary TV series) (currently in RM) and Beyond (Canadian TV program) (recently closed as part of a multimove request). Both of these shows reside in Category:Canadian documentary television series and a quick glance at the other shows in that category and that whole branch of categories demonstrate that the vast majority are currently named as (TV series).

NCTV naming is fundamentally built on the idea that if is show is not series/serial, not a miniseries, not a TV film, not a game show, and not a talk show, then it falls into the (TV program)/(TV programme) disambiguation as a catch-all. We've added some additional guidance to help people define these types of shows, but this is the basic structure.

What's happening, and I think is the source of recent RM confusion, is that the guidance we've added under WP:NCTV#Non-series television (Each episode of an on-going show usually is self-contained with little connection to other episodes, other than title, format, hosts, and other on-air personalities.) is being used to prescriptively try to rename anthology-style shows (true crime documentary, nature documentary, paranormal documentary) into (TV program), whereas they are vastly defined in the "real world" and by our editors for a long time as (TV series). By their nature, anthology shows do not have a strong episode-to-episode narrative, but they are classified as series due to their being grouped into "seasons" and aired only part of the year (as defined in WP:NCTV#Series television). This is where the guidance is somewhat hindering us because it is leading to a mismatch compared to general reader and editor expectations. I tried changing the word on-going to year-round (aka non-"season") as I think that is clearer, but was reverted. These categories today are very consistent as (TV series), but if we don't do something, either to clarify the wording or convince some RM participants of the actual intent, then we're going to keep running into this at RM, leading to inconsistency within these categories as some RMs (notoriously low-participation) sway one way or the other. -- Netoholic @ 17:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed a couple sentences of definition which I myself added in Sep 2017 which are the source of this recent confusion. This should hopefully return clarity to the idea that (TV program) is only a fallback when the other more specific disambiguators ("TV series", "game show", etc.) don't fit. -- Netoholic @ 23:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll respond to this eventually, when I have some time, but relevant related discussions can be found at the referenced RM and at my Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
If we're going to have a (TV series) disambiguator, don't you think the goal should be to use it to match what the "real world" also describes as a "series"? Taken (documentary TV series), for example, on their official website (https://takentheseries.com), network website[1], press releases[2], and secondary coverage[3][4] is absolutely referred to as a series. Their Twitter handle is @takentheseries and their official Facebook is /takentheseries/ . Everything about this show screams at us "series" - its one of the clearest examples I've ever seen. So, if some editors are somehow arriving at the conclusion that we should not call it a (TV series), then either the guideline is unclear, they are confused, or they are trying to fully eliminate (TV series) as a valid option. -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be easier for the average reader to just use one term for everything - "TV series" or "TV program" and not attempt to differentiate between them. Categories already use one or the other without much justification. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
That's one of the directions I'm leaning in – popular media commonly refers to everything as a "TV series" (rightly or wrongly). One option is to eliminate the use of "TV program" except to disambiguate single-airing TV shows (i.e. basically "TV specials"), and use "TV series" for everything else that airs two or more "episodes" – that would allows us to also eliminate use of "miniseries" as disambiguator as well, which I which think would be a worthwhile bonus. Otherwise, I think the current arrangement is basically fine and doesn't need to be changed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to be blunt, IJBall, but saying the current arrangement is basically fine is an unacceptable answer considering that you are a proponent of re-naming shows which are clearly series into (TV program). So if you don't want to eliminate (TV series) and you don't want clarifying changes made to NCTV, then the only conclusion to be reached is that you are acting out of confusion stemming from the wording I added about a year ago. I apologize for that, and I will do everything I can to clarify the intent to you directly. -- Netoholic @ 05:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Some of use have simply tried to follow the current NC guideline (which, as you pointed out, you wrote), which some of us think makes sense (and have been successful in some RMs with it), and you've been having the problem with it. I actually like the current wording, as I think it makes quite a bit of sense – simplistically, as currently written, NCTV is basically saying: scripted (i.e. storyarced) = "TV series" and "non-fiction" (standalone episodes) = "TV program". But I don't agree with your proposed formulation for the use of "TV program" – Whats new? is correct: how you want to use "TV program" is actually worse than the current arrangement, and if the current arrangement is not acceptable to other editors, we should simply restrict the use of "TV program" disambig. to single-airing programming, and use "TV series" for everything else (including eliminating the use of "miniseries" as woodensuperman, for one, has been advocating). And you don't have to clarify anything – you may have intended one thing, but the language was read another way by more than one of us, and we don't have a problem with the current language, even if you now do. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall:: Again, status quo is unacceptable. If you don't want to change any wording, can than you at least concede that anthology series have "standalone episodes" but yet are still widely-classified as (TV series), and so your way of delineating them is wrong. Black Mirror is a TV series. Nova (TV series), Nature (TV series), Masterpiece (TV series) (formerly known as Masterpiece Theatre), and hell pick anything else in Category:American anthology television series are all called series in the media AND properly named (TV series), but have the "standalone episodes" quality which you think makes them a (TV program). I've suggested removing the wording which suggests "standalone episodes" can't be a series. Should we instead add "anthologies" to the description section of WP:NCTV#Series television? What can we do to eliminate this confusion? -- Netoholic @ 05:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
"Status quo is unacceptable." – to you. What is not yet clear is whether it's "unacceptable" to anyone else. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For me, anything that is in an episodic format, whether fiction or non-fiction, should be disambiguated "(TV series)". This would eliminate the genre/format types of disambiguation we are currently seeing, such as "(miniseries)", "(game show)", "(talk show)", etc., which should all be deprecated in the same way that "(telenovela)" was. --woodensuperman 13:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Why are we tying ourselves in knots when "(TV series)" is a perfectly good disambiguator for any of these? "Miniseries" means different things to different people in any case (to me, it means a very short series divided into two or three episodes, four at the most; to other people it means something different; the modern American usage is rarely used in the UK; etc, etc) and they're clearly all TV series, whether fiction or non-fiction. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    • And now you've taken a good proposal, and stretched it too far – there's nothing wrong with disambiguation using "game show" or "talk show": they've never been a problem, and are clearly indicated as such in sourcing. But disambiguating everything else that airs multiple episodes with simply "TV series" (and those that air just singly with "TV program"/"TV programme") – and eliminating the "series" vs. "non-series" TV sections of NCTV – would, I think, eliminate Netoholic's current objections. It certainly would massively simplify NCTV's disambiguation scheme, which I think is a net-plus. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
      • "game show" and "talk show" are genre/format based disambiguators, which are not allowed for any other genres or formats (soap opera, telenovela, sitcom, etc.), so why are we making an exception for them here? If you want to simplify the disambiguation, then this is clearly the way to go. --woodensuperman 14:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, because they aren't "TV series". More relevant to Wikipedia, they aren't referred to as "TV series" in sourcing (whereas the others you listed generally are referred to as "TV series"). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
          • If something isn't a TV series, then "(TV program(me))" could be used. --woodensuperman 14:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
            • No, see, that's exactly the issue we're arguing about right now – the whole point of the proposal is to restrict "TV program" to single-airing TV shows (e.g. "TV specials"). The problem right now is there's uncertainty about what is a "TV series" vs. what's a "TV program" according to NCTV as written. The proposal here is to eliminate the use of "TV program" for any TV shows that airs two or more "episodes", and just use "TV series". Now, I'd prefer to keep use of "talk show" and "game show" as well, as I think they're useful for disambiguation purposes. But "TV program" as currently used in NCTV now has probably got to go... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
              • It is not appropriate to use "(talk show)" or "(game show)" as they are not restricted to TV series, they could be a radio series, etc., and we need to move away from the genre/format thing. But, to my mind, as they are shown daily or weekly, this constitutes a "series". As far as disambiguation goes, "(TV series)" sufficiently does the job anyway, and it avoids inconsistency and pointless arguments as to what constitutes a "game show". --woodensuperman 14:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
              • Just looking at random at Category:1990s American television series, and that includes all manner of game shows, talk shows, programs, etc, all of which could use "(TV series)" as a disambiguator. --woodensuperman 15:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
              • @IJBall:See, what you're proposing is based on the fundamental problem - NCTV should not be used as a source for definitions of "TV series", "miniseries", "program", etc. but should rather only list the set of allowable disambiguators and put the task on which term is most often used among reliable sources. That is the real problem - you're interpreting the helper text (...self-contained with little connection to other episodes...) as a firm definition and that is what leads to the total disconnect with reality like in the case of Taken where everything external to Wikipedia calls it a "series" but you don't want to use (TV series). The choice of disambiguator has always, per WP:Verifiability, been about what the sources call it. The same applies to (miniseries) - we cannot ever set an episode limit or any other definition which satisfies every case and so (miniseries) should only and ever be used when a majority of reliable sources describe something as it - The Defenders (miniseries) for example is pretty clearly a mistake ont he part of editors and should be (TV series), whereas Roots (1977 miniseries) is spot-on. For me, removing that helper text is the solution because it puts the onus back on the sources. I do agree with you though that (game show) and (talk show) can easily remain part of this, as in those cases, the sources usually use those terms to the exclusion of all others and readers/editors just "get it" very readily. -- Netoholic @ 17:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
                • Disambiguation schemes should be based on the KISS principle – the ledes can accurately reflect what something is in detail, and redirects can always be created. But the issue right now is that you'll have some sources calling something a "miniseries" and other sources calling something a "limited series", or some sources calling something a "talk show" and other sources calling it a "TV series", and it's not working, and it's leading to endless fights like this one. Just make "TV series" the "general" disambiguator of choice for "multiple-episode" programming under NCTV, and these fights go away. That fact is, it likely possible to find at least one source describing anything you can think of as a "TV series", because "TV series" has become a popular vernacular "catchall" for all TV programming like "TV show" has. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
                  • I'd much rather have RM discussions about what sources say (because in most cases in RM the problem is lack of sourcing) than debate semantics written into the NCTV guideline. NCTV is a guideline of Wikipedia, and so KISS principle is nothing in comparison to WP:Verifiability. The "limited series" thing is a red herring - it simply doesn't come up and if we don't mention it in NCTV as an allowable disambiguator, then it can be dismissed as a naming option, which will naturally result in such shows most often being named as (TV series). Decisions about what to call something should be based on the preponderance within sources... and "limited series" just is never used that often. Any one-off uses of a term (like if one sources calls The Defenders a miniseries) are outweighed by all the other sources. -- Netoholic @ 17:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a hard one. For some more familiar with television, the distinction between The Flash (2014 TV series) and The View (talk show) is very clear, for others? Maybe not. When we move to a program like The Defenders (miniseries), I'm sure there would be a lot more confusion whether it is a TV series or a miniseries. I wouldn't mine seeing a much simpler disambiguation scheme used here, where everything with a season is a TV series and everyone else is a TV program. That would mean that - articles currently disambiguated with "TV series", "miniseries", "serials" and other seasonal TV programs would use "(TV series)", while articles currently disambiguated with "TV programs", "TV specials" and "game shows" would use "(TV program)" (and TV films, staying with "(film)"). Talk shows are a bit more tricky - some, like the US network talk shows, are closer to the TV program scheme, while others, like Norm Macdonald Has a Show has clear seasons, so not sure what the best option for those are. --Gonnym (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    • That proposal (everything with a season is a TV series and everyone else is a TV program.) still has the flaw that we are defining what things should be called, rather than reflecting what the sources call them. We have to get NCTV out of the business of providing definitions and just list out a set of disambiguators to choose from which are commonly-used in sources. (TV program) should mostly be a fall-back for when sources refuse to call something a "series", "talk show", "game show", "film", or "miniseries". This most often will result in one-off shows being (TV program) naturally. -- Netoholic @ 17:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Should we call back the anime WikiProject then and let them know that "anime" is back on the table? How about "telenovela", "soap opera", "reality series", "docu-drama" or "documentary"? How come the line is drawn where you say it is? All of the types I've just said are stuff that regularly appear in RS and are the common name. --Gonnym (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, the specifics of which disambiguators is another discussion. We've shown consensus against using "genre" so no, I don't think so. Genre disambiguation was deprecated exactly because we get trapped in debating strict definitions and where to draw lines, but on a massive scale. If the six disambiguators we use on NCTV aren't enough or too many, we can discuss that, but the main ones we choose should be so clear-cut as to solve most issues, with the sixth one being the fall-back of (TV program) as a generic term. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Well, your argument a few lines above this said [your proposal] still has the flaw that we are defining what things should be called, rather than reflecting what the sources call them. We have to get NCTV out of the business of providing definitions and just list out a set of disambiguators to choose from which are commonly-used in sources, yet here you are saying that for genres (and only some of them, as "talk show" and "game show" are still used) we shouldn't reflect what the sources call them and instead have NCTV provide definitions for them. Not sure how this is different. --Gonnym (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
            • I think NCTV uses "game show" or "talk show" and the rest to disambiguate based on their format not genre. In most sources, the format is the subject noun, and genre is more often the adjective to that noun. For example, a source may call Black Mirror a "sci-fi anthology series" where "sci-fi" and "anthology" are genres, and NCTV only cares about the format - "series". You rarely hear shows described as "game show series" or "talk show series"... they are just "game show" or "talk show". So yes, we are reflecting what sources call them, we're just selecting to ignore the genre in favor of the format. -- Netoholic @ 18:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This whole convention could use a top-to-tail review and rewrite. There are so many "do X except in the case of Y, then do A,B,C but NEVER do D" type clauses and exceptions. Not to mention, it is written as law of the land when it is nothing more than a guideline treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on using US or U.S.

Latest comment: 5 years ago44 comments16 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The question asked in the RfC is neutral and it includes examples that illustrate and clarify its intent. A background section is also included that sets out the conditions giving rise to the RfC and it includes hyperlinks to support the main assertions made therein.

The respondents are evenly split between those !voting support and those !voting oppose with some (on each side) seemingly beholden to long held partisan views (with no hint of compromise in sight). With beliefs this strongly held and contention this potential and high, I commend all of the participants for the civil discourse they each contributed to maintain.

While the arguments in support were generally stronger; being more within the RfC's scope and more consistently underpinned with references to guidelines cited in the RfC's background section, the arguments in opposition were not devoid of policy based language or so out of scope or weak to warrant their being discounted.

And when due weight is apportioned to each argument according to strength, the resulting shift is not sufficient to declare a consensus in favor of the stronger side.

In closing the discussion, therefore, I would like to offer the following suggestions on ways to improve: I am just kidding (presuming that levity is allowed)

I would, however, like to express my gratitude to SMcCandlish (!voting support) and Colin M (!voting oppose) who both published strong, policy based rationales supporting their respective side, and they each showed by their rationale's context that they had researched the matter more fully and phrased their policy linked attributions more accurately than others seemed to achieve. My thanks to both of you.

(non-admin closure) by --John Cline (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Should television articles prefer US over U.S. when disambiguating a television show from the United States? For example, Survivor (US TV series) instead of Survivor (U.S. TV series) -- Whats new?(talk) 10:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC) 04:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Background

The WP:NCTVUS section currently reads Prefix the country of broadcast (adjective) – (U.S. TV series), (Canadian TV series), (UK TV series) and further notes Important: Write U.S. with periods, but write UK without periods (full stops) as per WP:NCA. WP:NCA specifically uses U.S. in its examples, notes both US and U.S. redirects should be created, and that The abbreviations are preferred over United States and United Kingdom, for brevity.. MOS:US notes While in principle, either US or U.S. may be used (with internal consistency) to abbreviate "United States" in any given article, the use or non-use of periods (full stops) should also be consistent with other country abbreviations in the same article (thus the US, UK, and USSR, not the U.S., UK, and USSR). Given the use of UK, and potentially NZ or UAE as disambiguators, there is not consistency with using U.S. to disambiguate, although there is no specific policy or example that consistency needs to be used amongst titles, just within an article.

As currently written, this project guideline insists that only one style (U.S.) is acceptable, in contradiction with the WP:MOS, and [i]f any contradiction arises, [WP:MOS] always has precedence. Further, a discussion at the Village pump was closed in November 2018 reaffirming the wording of MOS:US and that [t]here is consensus that "US" is currently the dominant form of the abbreviation -- Whats new?(talk) 04:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, see earlier discussion -- Whats new?(talk) 05:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The cited discussion has moved. It is probably the one at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 14#Removing line about writing "U.S. with periods". EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

  • No - if there ever was a change to be made, it should not be between two valid abbreviation options. We would go in the direction of instead using the long name of the country - (United States TV series) - but due to the desire to be concise, prevent edit wars, and avoid an extreme amount of work, I do not see much value in making this change at this time. I am still hopeful that someday the wikimedia developers will help us solve the entire disambiguation quagmire by instead allowing us the technical capability to name articles based on precise titles, and allow "disambiguation" to be handled via a description field much like we see being used on Wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6388} - which you can enable to view on Wikipedia by enabling the "Show page description beneath the page title" in your Gadget preferences. -- Netoholic @ 08:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
That is a large technical change that may or may not occur someday. In the meantime, abbreviation is preferred per WP:NCA -- Whats new?(talk) 09:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, then there is still no compelling reason (beyond individual editor preference) to move thousands of articles just to remove two periods. Status quo should be maintained. -- Netoholic @ 10:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Redirects should be created, as NCA states create redirects that contain (US) and (U.S.). For example, "Great Northern Railway (US)" should redirect to "Great Northern Railway (U.S.)" (or the other way around) so both titles should exist for all these titles anyway. Why should US be the redirect? -- Whats new?(talk) 11:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
And likewise, why should U.S. be the redirect? Your personal preference alone, apparently. -- Netoholic @ 06:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
No, my primary reasons are (1) to keep consistency between US and UK, and (2) the fact that MOS:US no longer specifies that U.S. must be used - yet this naming convention continues to insist U.S. must be used, with the word "Important" bolded around the instruction no less -- Whats new?(talk) 09:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Consistency could also be maintained by moving articles to use "U.K."... certainly, it would be less rework to move the UK articles as they are fewer in number. The convention chose the options we use today long ago to prevent inconsistency among TV articles and to prevent move wars over two periods. It has been very successful in that regard. So tell me why we should abide by your personal preference over another? -- Netoholic @ 09:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
MOS:US or WP:NCA doesn't permit U.K. so that's not an option. The 'convention' was chosen when MOS:US only allowed U.S. - that has since changed, but this naming convention has not kept up. Writing U.S. is not the sole option anymore. You keep saying this is because of "my personal preference" but that has never once been my argument, so I'm not sure why you keep seeing need to refer to it. I've outlayed several policy-backed reasoning relevant to the discussion. -- Whats new?(talk) 10:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
You haven't made a case for the change you propose. If MOS:US allows both options, then at best your proposal here should be that this naming convention likewise allow both options. But you aren't doing that... you're asking us to switch from one acceptable option to another acceptable option, and giving no rationale for it. As such, there is no other conclusion than that you want to make this wholesale switchover based on your preference. -- Netoholic @ 12:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes I'm specifying a particular format, not because of my preference, but for policy-backed reasons I've explained several times, yet you keep insisting my personal preference alone is the sole basis. Have a re-read. -- Whats new?(talk) 08:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't care which style is used, but for WP:CONSISTENCY, the same one should be used for all instances (Note: we don't use NZ or UAE at all). Also, agree with Netoholic that something along the lines he described is a better system than what wikipedia currently has, though, most any other options would be better than this system. --Gonnym (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:NCA is against using the full name when obvious abbreviations exist. NZ or UAE may not be used, but given WP:NCA, it probably should. But that's for another discussion -- Whats new?(talk) 09:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
UAE was up in a recent RM discussion and was moved to Emirati per WP:CONSISTENCY with other non-television Wikipedia articles. Edit: Also, neither NZ or UAE are listed at List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations, which is a requirement of the guideline. --Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No – Netoholic is (partially) right: rather than replacing "U.S." (which is the correct form) with "US", we should instead get rid of "U.S." and "UK" entirely and replace them with American and British for disambiguation, which would follow WP:NCFILM, and pretty much every other naming convention on the project on this score. WP:TV and WP:NCTV are wildly out of step on this issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 11:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:NCA is opposed to that -- Whats new?(talk) 11:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, what are you basing "U.S. (which is the correct form)" on exactly? -- Whats new?(talk) 12:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
IJBall, you are aware that The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a country, Great Britain is an island, The United States of America is a country and the Americas consist of two continents, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
If you want to go "litigate" that issue on a project-wide basis, feel free. In terms of current usage, the issue is already resolved in favor of using "American" and "British" for disambiguation. 02:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: What are you basing that on? WP:NCA says not to disambiguate with American and British. Are you able to point to anything beyond what other Wikiprojects are doing, that is also at odds with NCA? -- Whats new?(talk) 04:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I would really like to see a link to an RfC or other discussion that "already resolved" that Ireland (which is not in Great Britain) is not a part of the UK. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes A project guideline in conflict with the WP-wide MOS shouldn't really need an RFC? Since WP:MOS directs to the unpunctuated form in the body of articles where other abbreviations such as UK or EU appear, the unpunctuated form is the only one that enables consistency within articles let alone between them. It's also the most common format used globally, including by increasing number of US outlets such as CNN. Also worth noting that while 'American' is always an adjective, US can be either adjective or noun, and 'America' wouldn't be an acceptable substitute. MapReader (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, per WP:CONSISTENCY policy, because MOS:US already favors "US", and NCTV (based on MOS:TV and other MOS pages) isn't some magical fiefdom that can make up contradictory rules (see WP:CONLEVEL policy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    • MOS:US does not "favor" either format, despite your claim. Both are acceptable. To maintain WP:CONSISTENCY, within the scope of this naming convention, one use was chosen lonmg ago and remains. Arguing for a change now is simply expressing a personal preference for a favorite, and is damaging in that this affects thousands of articles and massive workload for so very little actual improvement to the encyclopedia. I have never heard any confusion regarding the two periods - the only motivation to change comes from people of one regional form of English wanting to impose their preference on others. If someday, and overwhelming shift away from the periods is demonstrated site-wide, then a change here can be made... but we should not be on the bleeding edge of such a change when consensus is still prone to change year-to-year. -- Netoholic @ 06:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
      Been over this before. It very obviously favors "US" because we do not use "U.K." or "P.R.C.", and we do not mix "U.S." style in the same article as "UK" and "PRC". This automatically means that "U.S." on Wikipedia is doomed in the long run, and it's already been on its way out for years.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Both forms are acceptable, per the MOS. Because we are talking about a disambiguator that will appear in parantheses, I don’t see how it matters that UK is also in use. Look at how the American and British versions of The Office are handled in the Greg Daniels article, for example. Calidum 20:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Calidum: So are you suggesting that only U.S. should be used, or that either is acceptable and is up to the creating editor? -- Whats new?(talk) 00:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    Pretty much. I think the status quo is fine and specifying a particular form runs counter to WP:CREEP. Calidum 13:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Calidum: Sorry, I don't understand that. The status quo is that one particular form is only allowed, yet you say you're opposed to specifying a particular form? -- Whats new?(talk) 08:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
    Well if one form is in use and there is nothing inherently wrong with it, it’s a pointless waste of time and resources to change to another equally acceptable form. Calidum 17:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Although I do not agree that MOS has precedence over naming conventions, the same reasons for using "US" apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    Um, all of the NC pages that get into style matters are derived from MoS, not vice-versa, and we do not actually tolerate conflicts between them (per WP:P&G, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:GAMING, WP:POLICYFORK, and all the other material on how to write and interpret policy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No, per above discussion points, and that both forms are within common name and acceptable and recognizable styling for the name. Readers will know what it means, either way, and both have been used so much that there will be no confusion. One of those 'not broken' requested changes, there is no need to put another rule in place when there is nothing to fix. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes at least as framed in MOS:US rather than the absolutism in this page. --Izno (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per the above arguments and consistency. There is no good reason to favour "U.S." over "US". -- /Alex/21 06:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I favor US (without periods) personally, but until recently, MOS:US generally preferred U.S., I'm not sure how/when that changed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Power~enwiki: Here, among other discussions elsewhere -- Whats new?(talk) 21:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
      • First, that RFC structure was a mess right from the start. Even still, the guideline reads "retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it" and so per WP:RETAIN unless there is a compelling and widespread agreement to change NCTV and to alter thousands of articles, then we should avoid it. This RFC is never going to conclude this, and it has outlasted its usefulness. I am requesting closure per 30-day standard. -- Netoholic @ 22:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
        • That RfC was still closed without appeal, and I have put forward the case for good reason to change the guideline here, not in the prose of all articles. I have already requested closure at the Admin's noticeboard. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No Both forms are acceptable. The line Important: Write U.S. with periods, but write UK without periods (full stops) as per WP:NCA. should be deleted. The claimed support from WP:NCA does not exist, and MOS:US (which allows either "US" or "U.S.") should govern. Colin M (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about double parenthetical disambiguation

Latest comment: 5 years ago36 comments10 people in discussion
There is a rough consensus to support the concatenation of double parentheticals in article titles. The raw vote count is 6 editors in favor of the proposal, two editors in favor of an alternative proposal that still concatenates the parentheses but without commas, and one editor in favor of an alternative solution that follows natural English grammar for season disambiguation. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 20:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the temporary consensus generated here and here to concatenate double parenthetical disambiguators in article titles of television series be added to the television naming conventions guideline? StraussInTheHouse (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I am pinging the contributors who participated in both requested move discussions.

Many thanks, SITH (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Survey and discussion – Jan 8

  • Yes. Most precise and readable solution to me. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. FTR, I think this discussion may be a little too early, as it would be best to come up with some consensus on a permanent "solution" to the naming of "by year, season" cases. But, in general, there definitely does seem to be support to eliminate cases like Dallas (1978 TV series) (season 1) and go with something like Dallas (1978 TV series, season 1) instead. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, for aesthetics if nothing else. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Alternative - Certainly we should avoid double parentheticals, but aesthetically, concatenating them with comma is unappealing, potentially confusing to readers, and unnecessary. There is no strict requirement in NCTV that the season number be in parentheses, although it is common to do so, and as such I'd like to use us move more to a format like Dallas (1978 TV series) season 1. -- Netoholic @ 02:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I actually prefer the natural disambiguation, season 1 of Dallas (1978 TV series). More natural pipe trick than Net's and still more asthetically pleasing than the commas version. (Commas are regardless preferable to double parens.) --Izno (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    • But potentially much harder to search, as if we went to that format "globally" in WP:TV, searching "season 1 of" would return only the top dozen or so results (out of all TV shows with "season 1" articles) rather than what's desired. The advantage of the present system is that is you search "Dallas (1978" it's very likely to turn up the season article people are looking for, or at least a season very nearby... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Internal search (and even, a specific form of that) comes secondary to policy concerns. I'm not advocating global changes, but we can make it one if you want. When you type something into Google, you don't search Dallas (1987 TV series season 1) you would search season 1 of Dallas (and out would pop a list of the various seasons 1 of the Dallas-es). In the more general case of search, if someone is looking for the show or the seasons, they're more likely just to type in the title of the show they're looking for and navigate from there (or at least, that is mine when I don't know what the list of episodes is called exactly). I'm not strung over, as regardless the change suggested is an improvement over status quo, but I think now should be when this case is made. --Izno (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
        • You may. Personally, I'd Google "dallas s1" or "dallas season 1". Quite often "got s8". But we don't title articles like that, do we? No, because we don't based titles off of what we do personally. If someone searches for just the title of the series, then the series should naturally come first in the title of any season article. -- /Alex/21 12:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I'm mostly just not a fan of parentheses in the middle, which is why I didn't advocate just for stripping the parentheses off the problem children (i.e. Dallas (1978 TV series) (season 1) -> Dallas (1978 TV series) season 1), nor for simple rearrangement and parentheses stripping (i.e. Dallas season 1 (1978 TV series), which also doesn't group the parenthetical very well)--that defeats both the pipe trick and the readability of the title, IMO. As for the rest of your argument, it does not follow from our article titles criteria. We actually do shoot for what you or I would say or do to find and e.g. recognize a title. If I do want the season article, I also will search for "dallas season 1" (or more likely, "list of dallas episodes" because that's what I'm usually interested in). --Izno (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per above the the discussions; if two disambiguators are required, then they should be merged into one. -- /Alex/21 04:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Netoholic's alt proposal - "season #" is the actual subject of the article, not the series itself, which means it isn't a dismabiguator. Since "Season # (series)" is not a very good option (unlike "Episode (series)" or "Character (series)" which we use), this makes this style the best option and could also work just as well for country double disambiguation (Big Brother (UK series) series 1). Also, the less different styles we have for different scenarios, the easier it is for editors to remember the style they should use and also for template/module programmers to create working code. --Gonnym (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I would fully support Doctor Who (episodes) and American Horror Story (characters). -- /Alex/21 13:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm supporting this proposal because it's the most consistent with our current guidelines. Some editors are promoting the idea of "XXXX (TV series) season 1," which would parallel "GGGG season 1" for shows without any disambiguation. I would support that alternative but only if we were to drop the season parentheses of all shows. I never understood why seasons were put in parentheses to begin with, since the subject of an article is the season itself, not the TV series. But that's a broader discussion that we can have after this RfC perhaps, if enough editors feel strongly. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, per two previous consensus discussions, and WP:CONSISTENCY, etc. I don't buy the alt. proposal; doing things like "Season 9 (The Walking Dead)" improperly elevates numeric designations like "season 9" to titles per se, "Season 9", which is original research a.k.a. bullshit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: I think you somewhat misunderstand or are miscasting an alternative (or simply ignoring it?); the alternative proposal I made is season 9 of The Walking Dead (1978 TV series) which is a WP:NATURAL name for the article. That's how we talk about seasons. --Izno (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I think SMcCandlish was talking about Netoholic's alternate proposal. As far as I can tell, WP:NATURAL says nothing about titling an article the way we say it, and such a suggestion would be an affront to article titling. IJBall summed it up quite well as to why such titling could never be accepted. -- /Alex/21 12:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Though WP:COMMONNAME would actually support "Season 9 of ...." such as But now that Season 4 of Netflix's House Of Cards[6] or "... season 9"Recap 'House Of Cards' Season 3 from its title; In House Of Cards season 3 has Frank Underwood lost his devilish USP?[7]; The Walking Dead season 9 is here.[8]. I'm sure there are much more, these were at the top without even trying to search for more. Saying that any of these is WP:OR is just incorrect. In fact, I'm pretty sure we would not find any RS that is using "Series (season #)". --Gonnym (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
        And yet, we title these articles using our current guidelines. We title the articles as "House of Cards (season 3)", because the article is about the specific subject of House of Cards, but what particular area of the series are we talking about? Season 3. Hence, it's use as a disambiguator. Based on those first two sources, should we also be naming it House Of Cards (capital O)? -- /Alex/21 13:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
        There is no "and yet", this discussion is about changing our current season guidelines, so your argument is a circular argument. To your question, we could name it that, but then we'd run into MOS:TITLECAPS and then we'd have to check more sources to see what the actual name is and then decide. However, as I said, "House of Cards (season 3)" on the contrary, will not appear in any RS. Also, I strongly disagree with your season logic rational. The topic is the season 3 and the dismabiguator is the series itself. This is the same logic we use for episodes - we don't have 30 Rock (Pilot) we have Pilot (30 Rock); and for character - we don't have Star Trek (Data), but Data (Star Trek); and as I've added above, we also don't do that for Lists - we don't have Doctor Who (list of episodes), but we do have List of Doctor Who episodes. These are all specific subjects of the series, yet in two types we disambiguate the series and not the subject itself and the last we don't disambiguate any. --Gonnym (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
        Be careful; the reason they are in parentheses is because of WP:PARENDIS. It's just another way to skin the cat. The reason we do the things with episodes we do is because the name of the episode is clear (and in other areas); it's "Pilot", and what we're trying to say is which pilot it's the pilot of (which is 30 Rock in this case) so that someone navigating. I guess I actually see that season names shouldn't be parenthetic at all (and so maybe I am arguing for a broad change to the guideline). But, as I said, cat skinning. Not world ending. --Izno (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
        Getting off-topic here, but "Pilot" is a bad example: "Pilot" isn't really an episode "title" – it's an episode type. "Reunion" is a better example of an actual episode title... [stepping off soapbox!] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, "season x of Title" would be natural-ish, but fails WP:CONCISE when "Title season x" will work (or "Title, season x" if we want to punctuate). I could support that format (with or without the comma, slight preference for the comma, for clarity), and I think it would be preferable to "Title (season x)" which looks like a disambiguation when it is not one, plus the parens are both more awkward to type and less natural a construction. I can't support "Season x (Title)" for the reason I already gave in my first response (and because it just reverses the pseudo-disambiguation), nor "season x of Title" for the concision reason I led with in this one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: Following this, would disambiguated season articles be done like "Dallas (1978 TV series), season 1" or "Dallas (1978 TV series) season 1" ?-- Netoholic @ 09:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    Is an innocent of (and useful, IMO--too many pages have the parenthetical disambiguation unnaturally positioned internal to entire name of the article when a little of could fix that quite nicely) the hill to die on w.r.t. WP:CONCISE? Probably not. (See also my reply at 13:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC) to Alex 21.) Anyway, I think there's a broad suggestion for change (because WP:CONSISTENCY), but perhaps there's consensus to treat these pages like this when we have a "double parentheticals" problem at the very least. --Izno (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional disambiguation

Latest comment: 5 years ago36 comments6 people in discussion

Currently the guideline states:

Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which has its own page, disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element).

As we see on Talk:Winterfell (Game of Thrones), this is clearly problematic. Basically, in the Game of Thrones universe, Winterfell is both a castle and the name of an episode. The castle is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to World of A Song of Ice and Fire#Winterfell, while the episode is clearly less important but happens to be the only entity called "Winterfell" which has an article on Wikipedia, so the rules technically stipulate "Winterfell (Game of Thrones)" rather than "Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode)", which is nonsense because the first one fails to accomplish any meaningful disambiguation. I understand the general principle behind the "own page" restriction, e.g. an eponymous episode containing a one-off character mentioned only in that episode would not need further disambiguation. Therefore, in keeping with WP:PRECISE and WP:INCDAB, I propose the following:

Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show, disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element). Such additional disambiguation is not necessary if the element in question is the primary topic for the title within the context of the show, and no other element from the show by that title has its own page.

Thoughts? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

  • The "has its own page" red line is valuable to keep most titles WP:CONCISE because a great many TV series only briefly mention characters/settings within their main pages or in "List of X characters/settings" pages. Whereas a lot of shows are popular enough to have individually-notable episodes, its much rarer that the same applies to characters, settings, or other elements. Hatnotes are sufficient on disambiguated episode articles like Winterfell (Game of Thrones) to avoid any particular confusion. I'd oppose that change, because without the red line, we would have to move a lot of articles to less-CONCISE titles, and overall less WP:CONSISTENT with other episodes of the same series. -- Netoholic @ 06:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Netoholic: Can you think of any actual examples where the second sentence of my proposal fails to prevent any unnecessary disambiguation? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts: I get what you're saying in that second sentence, I just don't think its easily explainable to others, and its rare a particular element only is present in that single article. For example, a character which an episode is named for is likely important enough to appear in at least a couple other episodes. It seems like that sentence would affect only certain "monster of the week", "crime of the week", or "planet of the week" series. Its a pretty niche case. -- Netoholic @ 22:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    Which is why I've put the emphasis on primary topic. If an episode is not more important than the character despite being the only such entity with its own page, then we do need the additional disambiguation to be clear that we're not talking about the character. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    In particular, I'd avoid the phrase "primary topic" because the way you mean it is not the same as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. I'd prefer the wording of the lines to remain straight-forward the way "has its own page" means. -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    How about this then: "Such additional disambiguation is not necessary if the title primarily refers to the element in question within the context of the show, and no other element from the show by that title has its own page." I see you've opposed the move on Talk:Winterfell (Game of Thrones), but you're clearly in the minority. I agree that we should strive for simplicity when possible, but it should never come at the cost of a suboptimal result (to the majority of participants in the debate). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    The "you're clearly in the minority" comment is not called for. Holding an RM at the peak of popularity of a page (and surely the week the episode airs will always be the peak of popularity) often results in votes from fans/casual editors that are not generally aware of TITLES policy, naming convention specifics, or precedent. It is the worst time to hold an RM and I don't see it as valid proof of general change in attitude. We've handled episode articles in the way the naming convention describes for years. -- Netoholic @ 01:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    Can you then justify why Winterfell (Game of Thrones) is a reasonable title for the episode, from first principles rather than citing WP:NCTV (since this is precisely what we're trying to change here, making it a circular argument)? And just because the participants are new doesn't mean that they're opinions are less valid; in fact, it's good to have fresh opinions because ultimately the point of naming conventions and disambiguation is to better serve our readers, not comply with rules which (in the opinion of many) defy common sense. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    I do like going to first principles, and I'd be willing to if this naming convention hadn't been this way since 2006, and been re-affirmed in multiple discussions, not overriden by subsequent RFCs, and quietly, consistently used by editors across several TV series during that time. I am not willing to casually toss 13 years of that history on the basis of a single RM held at the worst possible time an RM can be held. I think the last RFC about this was this one in 2013. I am not saying consensus can't or hasn't changed, but I am sure a change to the guideline can't be done without an RFC. I see 3 paths: status quo (require an article to exist), change to "covered by Wikipedia" (which lets list entries and brief mentions necessitate extended disambiguation), or full disambiguation using (SeriesName episode), etc. in all cases. I think we all agree that Title (episode) has undesirable qualities, even though it is just like Title (song) and other types of media. And your proposal is a bit too complex (at least in a way to quickly communicate it to casual editors) and very situational. -- Netoholic @ 03:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    Let me return to my beliefs on a first-principle basis. Basically, I agree with the actions taken in the famous case of Thriller (album), which has been established as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) after an RM and an RfD. That is to say, I consider partial disambiguation unacceptable for an article title unless all other senses have no standalone articles and are nowhere near as important as the one in question (Thriller fails the first condition, and Winterfell fails the second), but acceptable as a primary redirect if it fails only the first condition. My rationale: we need titles to be clear and unconfusing even if they introduce disambiguators which are technically unnecessary (that is why 2012 Aurora shooting was rejected as a title even though there was no other shooting in Aurora in 2012), but PDABs are nonetheless allowed to have primary topics to recognize what people overwhelmingly want when searching for that term. Let me know what parts of this framework you disagree with, if any, and we can go on from there (i.e. let's first establish the substance, then we can figure out the semantics). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    One of the main values (maybe the main value) of a naming convention is to prevent the need for RM discussions. The first part of your rationale, all other senses have no standalone articles, is very clear-cut which I think is why its lasted so long in this naming convention. Its a very binary yes/no criteria, easily explainable to others, easily verified, and that prevents a lot of RM discussions. The second part is and are nowhere near as important as the one in question is completely subjective and in almost every case requires a discussion. There is no specific threshold, and so the whims of the participants determine the outcome. It essentially negates the first part of your rationale, as it leads to RMs in most cases. Its why RMs held during peaks of popularity go the direction the Winterfell discussion is going - against the NCTV guideline as its written today - and ultimately defeats the main purpose of a naming convention, which is to provide WP:CONSISTENT (a first principle) titles with minimal need for discussion. A subjective guideline is no guideline at all. -- Netoholic @ 08:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    There is always going to be a tradeoff between consistency and objectivity on one hand, and achieving the local optimum on the other hand. This is a tradeoff which must be weighted both when applying the principles of general guidelines to construct specific guidelines, and when applying specific guidelines (and occasional WP:IAR) to decide each specific article. For a long time numerals always meant years to ensure consistency, even when something like 1 would blatantly violate WP:PTOPIC. Initially it was justified as part of MediaWiki's user preference handling (to automatically display dates in the user's preferred format, which only worked if the dates were linked), but after systematic linking was abolished in 2008 the status quo hung around for many more years, inconveniencing countless readers along the way. Finally, after much discussion we decided to make 1-10 numbers and 11-100 DABs as a compromise. Ugly? Yes. Subjective and arbitrary? Of course. But sometimes you just have to deal with it if it achieves a higher purpose. Note that there are limits to how far we're willing to go; nothing of note happened in years 911 or 1024 so the primary topic is pretty clearly not the year, but here I would defend consistency and go with the year anyways because having a random gap in the middle of all these years would be astonishing.
    Indeed, WP:ASTONISH is one of my main motivating factors in any discussion about naming conventions. That is why I think it would astonish anyone that the primary topic of Winterfell is a location in GoT but the primary topic of Winterfell (Game of Thrones) is something else in the GoT universe. My proposed wording can perhaps be improved (I admit it is a bit WP:CREEPy, though I struggle to find a wording which is more plain-English but still clearly captures my desired outcome), but the current state which allows for disambiguation on the basis of a term which fails to distinguish it from the primary topic is a violation of general disambiguation principles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    That's a good example, and it probably won't even be rare (TV series episodes are named after in-universe things in those series all the time, after all). Just adding "episode" in the parenthetic disambiguation is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    I don't see how those examples relate - how to handle years vs numerals is something that can be centrally-discussed. But deciding if a certain character meets a certain unspecified level of "importance" enough to justify extended disambiguation for an episode is a discussion that has to happen in every individual situation. Not very ideal. -- Netoholic @ 00:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There was already a pretty solid consensus when I raised this issue last time Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 15#Proposal: Episode titles - allow for extended disambiguation in cases where another element is an entry in a list article with myself, User:IJBall, User:SMcCandlish and User:Woodensuperman in favor of it, Netoholic asking for test RMs (and User:Alex 21 just asking a question). As for the tests, here is one example: Talk:Killer Frost (The Flash episode)#Requested move 3 December 2018. --Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, in the specific case of Winterfell (Game of Thrones) moving it to Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) probably makes a lot of sense. If nothing else, an WP:RM on that question is probably in order... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue seems to lie in the phrase ...which has its own page..., because that appears to contradict WP:DAB which says:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia

It goes on to explain that "covered by Wikipedia" includes article subsections. Perhaps then a simpler fix for this issue would be to change the guideline to say:

Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which is covered by Wikipedia, disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element)

This change would allow Winterfell (Game of Thrones) to be moved to Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode). Maybe there's other articles that this doesn't work for that I haven't considered though. AdA&D ★ 15:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I like your suggested change of phrasing (or something like that...) – it moves past just "another article" to including "redirects" in assessing whether additional disambiguation is necessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the second sentence of my proposed wording expresses the idea in a more explicit way. Otherwise, people are left wondering what "covered by Wikipedia" means. In the example I gave originally, a one-off character who shows up in one episode is technically "covered by Wikipedia," but that doesn't mean we should further disambiguate the episode if the character is not notable outside of the episode. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The "covered on Wikipedia" issue does follow the wording on WP:Disambiguation, but we've seen precedent that naming conventions can limit that and instead require that those other topics have dedicated articles about them. The best example is WP:SONGDAB, which is repeatedly used to enforce SongTitle (song) over SongTitle (Artist song), even when other songs by other artists are covered as mentions in other articles (such as track listings). I really wouldn't use the Winterfell RM as evidence one way or the other for the necessity for a change. An RM held during the peak of popularity of a topic tends to attract more fans who vote based on their gut feeling of the importance as relate to their show rather than RM regulars who are familiar with WP:TITLES policy, naming conventions, and precedent. Frankly, if we're going to expand the disambiguation here to included "covered by Wikipedia", we might as well go only slightly further and use the much simpler and CONSISTENT approach of saying that all such episode/character/element articles should be disambiguated using EpisodeTitle (ShowTitle episode) etc. -- Netoholic @ 22:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of changing the sentence so that extended disambiguation will be valid whether we are dealing with 2 articles or an article and a redirect to a section or list entry (I also don't believe in a primary dab, which almost always is the consensus over at WP:RM). Any rephrasing which supports that has my support. I also support Netoholic's proposal of just always using (x episode) as it makes identifying the article much easier and faster and basically solves almost all relevant RMs (and as a side note, it is much more correct. A "Winterfell" is not a "Game of Thrones" but it is a "Game of Thrones episode"). --Gonnym (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    • FTR, I'm not in favor of addition disambiguation if there's only a list element on a DAB page somewhere (and would oppose changing any naming guideline to cover that) – that has always struck me as a case of "preemptive disambiguation". We should only disamiguate for the existence of other articles, and redirects. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I agree that a list entry on a dab page is not a valid option. Meant more along the lines of episode or character lists. --Gonnym (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I saw after I posted that you meant redirects to list items, not "list items" themselves... Still, it's worth reiterating that disambig. isn't needed for simple list items at DAB pages, as a question about that recently came up at either WT:TV or WT:FILM (can't remember which...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I feel like people could WP:GAME the "and redirects" clause. I think we've see that there are editors out there that are so adamant about using (... episode) in the case of all episodes, that they are perfectly willing to create extraneous redirects. The worst example would be arguing that we have to keep an (... episode) disambiguation because someone created a (... character) redirect to that episode for a minor character appearing only in that very episode. It seems to me the example (Winterfell) is fought over so strongly due to it being a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, so maybe that should be the guideline rather than just any redirect. -- Netoholic @ 00:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure if gaming in this context is bad. If an article exists with a list of entries and someone creates a redirect to the specific entry they are actually following the guideline at MOS:REDIR, which recommends linking with a redirect. --Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
          • Redirecting to an entry on a List is one thing... but that about my example (a character redirect which points to the episode article they appeared in), or perhaps someone creating redirects for every minor character to the main page of a series (no List page). -- Netoholic @ 13:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
            • Ah ok, then I agree with your point. If the redirect is just a redirect to a general article than that shouldn't count. So to rephrase my comment based on IJBall's and your comments - a redirect to a section or list entry that mentions the element or a redirect to an alternative name (See Inmate 4587 and Inmate 4587 (Arrow episode) and other similar situations), but not a redirect to a general series article or dab page. --Gonnym (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Basically, we have to consider primary topic. By the way, it is not unusual for a subject to be the primary topic despite not having an independent article, cf. Libel (treated as a subtopic of Defamation and a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to such) and Libel (disambiguation). Let's consider the possible scenarios, assuming that ShowName has one or more elements called ElementName:

  1. If ElementName is unambiguous outside the show (i.e. all ShowName elements called ElementName taken together represent all or the vast majority of uses of the term in the world) and one of the elements is primary within the show, then the base title ElementName should contain either an article on the element or a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to wherever it is mentioned if it doesn't. All other elements with that name should be at ElementName (ShowName elemtype).
  2. If ElementName is unambiguous outside the show and there is no primary topic within the show, then the base title ElementName should be a disambiguation page pointing to all the elements' pages, which should each be at ElementName (ShowName elemtype). Alternatively, if only one element called ElementName has an article, it should usually occupy the base title ElementName, but this may be overridden by consensus given best judgment and common sense.
  3. If ElementName is ambiguous outside the show, and multiple ShowName elements called ElementName have articles, use ElementName (ShowName elemtype) for all of them regardless of any determination of show-specific primary topic, per WP:PDAB.
  4. If ElementName is ambiguous outside the show, and only one of the ShowName elements has an article, follow the same procedure as the first two points (based on whether the show-specific primary topic is the element with an article, an element without an article, or there is no primary topic).

I think the problem with the existing guideline is that it sort of assumes that an element with a unique article has to be primary, which is not the case. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The existing guideline doesn't really care if an Element is primary or not - just that it is independently notable (which is why it would have its own independent article). In other words, if there is only one independently notable Element of a particular name from a Show, then all you need to disambiguate with is the ShowName - if disambiguation is even necessary (based on whether the Element's name is the same as some other topic). If anything, the existing guideline kinda assumes that the Element is not primary, because if its primary, there'd be no need for a naming convention to tell you how to disambiguate it. -- Netoholic @ 02:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I would say that the standard ElementName (ShowName) disambiguation is mainly for cases where the element is not the global primary topic, and whoever wrote it didn't really think too much about local primacy and how could be different from notability. The purpose of the naming convention is to ensure that the show name is used rather than something else. Bolin (The Legend of Korra) would be perfectly unambiguous as Bolin (character), and no other disambiguation guideline prohibits the latter to my knowledge. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Any disambiguation is mainly for cases where its not the global primary. Independent notability is the standard for what decides a topic has its own article or not. WP:NCFILM#Character articles and WP:NCVG#Disambiguation handle it similarly to NCTV, defaulting to using the title of the work or franchise as disamiguator. Other media NCs are less developed on this. -- Netoholic @ 03:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I think you're overthinking it a bit; there's bound to be redundancy in any subject-level guideline for the sake of clarity, like how SNGs like WP:BIO will start off by parroting WP:GNG before delving into the specifics. Anyways, the original intent of NCTV is not important. What's important is that it currently prescribes a solution which many people, including me, consider nonsensical. "That's the way it's always been" is not a valid defense for bad policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

How about we keep the general rule as it is, but explicitly allow local consensus to override it when appropriate (so we don't have to invoke WP:IAR every time we encounter something like Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode)):

Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show, the title may be disambiguated further using Title (Show episode/character/element). Such additional disambiguation is usually not necessary if only one element from the show has a standalone article, but editors should regardless use their best judgment to select a title of appropriate precision.

It avoids spelling out exactly what to do in every imaginable scenario, instead trusting editors to make an appropriate determination using common sense and basic disambiguation principles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll oppose that. The only one in this and the previous discussion that opposes redirects is Netoholic. Looking at recent RMs which were for similar situations, such as Dragonstone RM, Killer Frost RM, Rose RM and Winterfell RM (which is currently is going to go that direction as well), it's obvious that the community thinks the same. Consensus does not mean a unanimity and trying to avoid fixing a guideline is always wrong, even more so, when you invoke as a reason an essay which has no community consensus at all. --Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Reality talent shows

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Are reality talent shows such as The Voice, Your Face Sounds Familiar, and Got Talent considered as TV series for naming? -Hiwilms (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Shows like The Voice have "continuing story elements" (e.g. for example, continuing contestants from week to week), so yes they are generally considered to be "TV series" for the purposes of NCTV. However, I'd argue that's not true of purely "episodic" reality TV shows like Kitchen Nightmares, though others disagree... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I am asking this because of the recent move warring in multiple Philippine TV reality and talent shows. I have reverted some already back to "TV series" since this is the naming convention used. --Hiwilms (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
"TV show" is absolutely wrong under WP:NCTV no matter what, so those moves should absolutely be reverted – it's either "TV series" or "TV program". "TV show" is to never be used... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

On "by country" being the "preferred" disambiguation under NCTV

Latest comment: 5 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

As requested, here is a by-no-means "all inclusive" list of recent RM's that consistently show a consensus in favor of preferring "by country" disambiguation whenever possible:

Again, this list is by no means complete, and I'll bet I could find others if I have some time...

Note that the consistent opposer in some of these RM's was Netoholic, but "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity" and one user shouldn't be able to "veto" a valid update to our naming guideline to reflect current consensus on the question. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Regarding WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation, since the origin of this naming convention guideline, neither "by country" or "by year" styles has ever been "preferred" over the other. Both are used in different circumstances, and the choice on which should be used is up to what is best for the set of articles being disambiguated. If there are advocates for one or the other being promoted to a primary method over the other, they need to demonstrate consensus for this change. In the meantime, the guideline should revert back to the long-term status quo and advocates for this change need to stop edit-warring this change when it is clearly disputed. -- Netoholic @ 14:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • No – there is consensus for the change. It's been confirmed over and over. And notice the new wording: "Generally the preferred disambiguation..." – i.e. "generally" = "not all the time". There is nothing false about this new wording – it is generally preferred, though there will be situations where "by county" will not be preferred (as shown in RM's). But the "default" is clearly a preference for "by country" disambig, as per WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Despite you implying it, it's not just me supporting this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
      • See, you claim that its just about calling it "generally preferred" and then you slip and call it a "default". Your list of RM discussions is not conclusive, as the individual circumstances for each set of moves is exactly why neither method is preferred. "Three Musketeers" in particular was inconclusive on some articles which remain using year. It could simply be that you submitted RMs for pairs of articles which just simply had a stronger case for "by country" than "by year" and your preference for a "default" has not been truly tested. You also could be leaving out discussions that went against your country "default" hypothesis. Moreover, as television productions become more international in nature, "by country" distinctions become harder to use to recognizably disambiguate (see this 2012 discussion). Every pair of articles needs to use the best disambiguation for its circumstances - and that means we cannot state a "default" or "generally preferred" method, but rather continue to advice to choose the one that promotes the most clear distinction. Even Netflix has to use both methods as necessary - [9][10], while other TV show sources like IMDB and epguides use year exclusively. I am sure there are some editors that would suggest we switch to "by year" as a default as well, for WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. I'd oppose that just as much as this move to country default. -- Netoholic @ 15:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Which is all your opinion. The problem is, no one else seem to agree with it, because common sense is telling most editors that we should diambiguate "by country" instead of "by year", when it's easy and straight-forward to do so. Again, one editor cannot block a consensus when it's shown to exist, and it's clearly shown here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
          • WP:NCVG adds year first and never considers country of origin (instead platform after). NCFILM adds year first and only after says to add e.g. year country film. NCBOOKS, NCOPERA, NCMUSIC, NCMDAB go to primary creator first (not reasonable here). NCMDAB goes to year subsequently. NCCOMICS more-or-less defers to other media type NCs. So, the year seems to be the most likely first-choice for media disambiguation where additional disambiguation is necessary. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
            • It is for movies, because there are far fewer of them (with the same title), and they only run for a relatively short period of time (in theaters). However, in television, "title stealing/sharing" for TV shows from one country to the next is far more rampant, and television series usually run multiple seasons, which makes "by year" disambiguation far less WP:RECOGNIZABLE to readers than "by country" disambig. Again, I'm not making the preference for "by country" disambiguation up – it's been shown to be preferred for TV series over and over again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
              • Even a year range like (2008-2016) is shorter than most country disambiguators. -- Netoholic @ 16:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
                • It's still not as WP:RECOGNIZABLE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
                  • Debatable. But it wins out on the other three WP:CRITERIA - natural (matches what IMDb and other sites use), very precise, and shorter/concise. -- Netoholic @ 16:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
                    • Izno, the difference between TV and the other media you gave, is that television has a very strong association with a country and in almost all cases, a television production is from one country. Unlike films which have a lot of co-productions from other countries, making disambiguation awkward (American-Britih-Canadian film) vs (2000 film); books where the association with a country is secondary (if at all) to a casual reader. A casual reader, might read a book in their native language without ever knowing the original country of origin, as books are mostly translated, even Harry Potter was translated to American English; Video games - I doubt anyone not very familiar with the game or developer would even know what the country of origin of Diddy Kong Racing is and even if it were disambiguated as "Diddy Kong Racing (British game)", that would not help a lot, as the Donkey Kong franchise belongs to Nintendo, a Japanese company and this was at a time where Rare was a second-party developer of Nintendo, making the association Japanese by nature. In television however, Happy Family (U.S. TV series) is more recognizable to readers than Happy Family (2003 TV series). As you almost always know what country a show is from. --Gonnym (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Time and time again RMs have shown that the community prefers a country disambiguation over a year disambiguation as that is much more recognizable to the readers. --Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Multiple disambiguation methods pre-existed this guideline, and both year and country disambiguation styles have been documented in it without specifying either one as a default for its entire history. If you want to change 15 years of consensus, you will need something more than your say-so that consensus has changed. Let's make an RFC with the options of "country default", "year default", and "status quo/no preference" as options. For many, if you're going to force the issue and make one a default, they might think year to be the better option per it being precise (not having to worry about the "country aired" vs "country originated" vs "country filmed" questions), concise/shorter, and would have fewer overlaps (less need for double disambiguation). -- Netoholic @ 15:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • As for the text. I think the recent change is not quite there. I'd change:
    • Generally the preferred disambiguation when shows are distinct due to region, especially when used to distinguish regional versions of the same format/premise. to
      • Generally the preferred disambiguation when additional disambiguation is needed. Used to distinguish shows with the same title from different countries.
    • Generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same region and/or across multiple regions. to
      • Generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same country.
This simplifies the language and makes it clearer, as the current text conflicts itself. --Gonnym (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no issues with this proposal, esp. replacing "region" with "country". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Using the country to disambiguate is fine in instances where there are multiple series, all of which are in different countries, like the examples provided above. This discussion, however, stems from a recent unsuccessful move request at Talk:The Village (2019 TV series). In that instance, there are two British series of the same name and one American series. In instances like this, the pages should all be disambiguated using the year per the current guideline, which states “Prefix the year of release or program debut...Generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same region and/or across multiple regions.” I see no reason to change that, because WP:NCDAB states “If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any.” This argument regarding NCDAB was raised in the RM I mentioned previously and was not contested. Because of this, I oppose Gonnym's proposal immediately above. Calidum 23:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Just as I suspected might happen. This "outlier" was left out of IJBall's original list of RMs above (even though it seems like he had to go to this RM to copy that list verbatim). Seems like cherry-picking to leave out a recent example which might indicate that "consistently show a consensus in favor of preferring "by country" disambiguation" may not be fully accurate. -- Netoholic @ 23:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Once again, you're ignoring the word "generally". Calidum's example is a "mixed" set example, which would fall out of the "easy" cases. What I'm talking about is cases like Happy Family (U.S. TV series), etc. – when you're talking 2 or 3 series from different countries with the same titles, those cases should preferentially be disambiguated "by country". The "mixed set" example results have been mixed – those ones will likely require RM's to determine preference. And, note – even in Calidum's example, the move was closed as "no consensus", not "in favor of by year" disambiguation. IOW, one example doesn't break the consensus established by the other examples (and, again, that list is by no means complete...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
        • In that "mixed set" the forms (American TV series), (1993 British TV series) and (2013 British TV series) would seem to be the most useful. --Khajidha (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In addition to my comment above, I'd like to add that disambiguating based on country could be difficult in some cases given the rise of streaming services. The Grand Tour, for example, is produced by and distributed by an American company (Amazon), and yet it is referred to as a British show on its Wikipedia page. Calidum 03:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Just a small point, which I think enhances your argument, The Grand Tour is mainly produced by a UK company but because it's distributed by Amazon it uses some US terminology such as "seasons" instead of series. This is actually contrary to what the article says - i.e. the article uses series, not seasons. It was also a point that the origin of that program was an issue discussed on the talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)/Archive_15&oldid=1072198169"