Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

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

Episode naming, again!

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting comments for Lost episodes

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

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

Star Trek example

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

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

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

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

I oppose your removing the information from the guideline (especially while you were involved in an active controversy about this in another part of Wikipedia). The information was useful, to show that there are multiple ways that episode titles can be handled. The Star Trek exception clearly affects hundreds of articles, as can be seen at Category:Star Trek episodes. It's worth mentioning. --Elonka 02:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I originally removed it long before we were in a dispute. Being in dispute alone is not a reason to keep a bad note that conflicts with other guidelines on naming conventions. It clearly has affected a lot of articles, and because of it we have a lot of cleanup to do. It's best not to make the job any bigger. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You removed it, without discussion, concurrent with the dispute at Talk:Fire + Water about a page move, even though that wording had been in place for months.[1] Further, every time different wording was suggested, you simply reverted it without discussion.[2][3][4] , and then in a display of profoundly bad faith, you then insisted that your version was "consensus", and that discussion was needed to restore the information that you had removed. [5].For the record, this is my current recommendation of what should (re)-added to the Guideline page, in the section under "Episode articles":

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

I would also point you to Wikipedia:Guidelines, which says, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.". --Elonka 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I did remove it without discussion, because it was added without discussion, and you were trying to push an absurd and unjustified exception. Your current recommendation is without sound logic. A bad example is a bad example, no matter how many times you re-word it. Advice that is not easily agreed upon and that has clearly caused confusion is something that should be removed. Even if the example is allowed, the way the information was being presented clearly wasn't helpful. It provided no context, had no explanation whatsoever, and there was no "consensus" to include it. Just because no one noticed it for a while doesn't mean it gained consensus. It's not much different than removing unsourced text from an article, because there's nothing backing this example. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC Episode Article Naming conventions

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

Summary of the issue

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

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

Potential Guidelines

  1. Use the existing naming convention from WP:NC and WP:D ("Disambiguate only when necessary")
    Example: The Dalek Invasion of Earth, The 23rd Psalm, Goo Goo Gai Pan, The Front (The Simpsons)
  2. Articles can be named <EpTitle> (NameOfSeries)
    Example: The Greater Good (Lost)
  3. Articles can be named <EpTitle> (NameOfSeries episode)
    Example: Darmok (TNG episode)

Notification

I created {{User:Argash/TVEpNCRfC}} for placement on appropriate talk pages. Feel free to put on talk pages where you deem appropriate to direct people to this discussion.

Poll

Sign to indicate which options you agree with.

Poll Question 1: Disambiguate episode article titles only when necessary

Support

A "support" vote means the disambiguation policy for television episode articles should be the same as the general policy: a title only should contain a parenthetical disambiguation if the title is ambiguous, and there are other articles with the same title.

  1. Support. Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support Shannernanner 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support —Wknight94 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Nohat 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support --theDemonHog 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support -- Ned Scott 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support ThuranX 02:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Jay32183 03:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Izhmal (User page | User talk page) 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support - Just the episode name, then X (Y), then X (Y episode), if a previous version is taken. KISS - Peregrinefisher 04:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. -- Wikipedical 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support and use (NameOfSeries episode) if required -- Chuq 07:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support we should consistently apply rules, not seek consistency by breaking them. -- Percy Snoodle 10:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support -- Harris 13:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. Strong Support--Ac1983fan(yell at me) 16:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support don't use disambiguation unless the majority of articles in the series already require it. (i.e. don't just slap disambiguation onto every episode article of a series for consistency. But if the majority of episode articles already have disambiguation because they need it, then putting putting disambiguation on the remaining minority may be acceptable.) --`/aksha 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Anþony 08:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support: disambiguation and article titles are not grouping mechanisms; Categories and "List of" articles are. -- JHunterJ 04:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support "Predisambiguation" (disambiguation when no known ambiguity issues exist) should not be supported on any articles. — Serge 16:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support --GhostStalker 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support --BlueSquadronRaven 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose

An "oppose" vote means the disambiguation policy for television episode articles should be an exception as the general policy: a television episode's article title should always include the name of the series it is in, regardless of whether or not the episode title is ambiguous.

  1. Strongly oppose thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: I prefer using a single, unified format for all episode titles, as indicated below. And FWIW, I don't have the luxury of checking WP many times per day, so try not to rush things. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: I like the person above me would like a single unified format as it looks better, and shows that they are part of a seires. - EnsRedShirt 07:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: ditto those above me -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  01:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --EEMeltonIV 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose sometimes. I think that this poll is badly-worded, and further, the wording has been changed multiple times since it was created, so I don't think that everyone's even entirely clear on what they're supporting or opposing anymore. But to be clear on my own opinion: I am opposed to having a naming convention guideline which tries to write in stone that all television episodes on Wikipedia must use the exact same format. I think that most shows can use a similar format, but that some exceptions are valid (for example, the Star Trek episodes have been using a slightly different format for a long time, without a problem). Just as is said in Wikipedia:Guideline: Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. So the current poll wording of, "a television episode's article title should always include the name of the series it is in," does not accurately reflect the third "flexibility" option which I think is a better choice. --Elonka 08:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Oggleboppiter 09:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Poll Question 2: Format of the disambiguation title

This section of the poll is regarding what form parenthetical disambiguations for television episodes should take. This is for all parenthetical disambiguations for television episodes, regardless of whether all episodes have parenthetical disambiguations, or only those which are ambiguous.

(NameOfSeries)
  1. Support -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support --Elonka 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) .
  4. Support -Xornok 03:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support (based on recent clarification); that is, if disambiguation is necessary, use (NameOfSeries) unless that is itself ambiguous (e.g. Dalek (Doctor Who episode), because Dalek (Doctor Who) might be ambiguous). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support, per Josiah Rowe; when/if necessary, use this form of disambiguation. I did think about this for quite a while; the Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic section recommends using the simpler disambig when choosing between "disambiguating with a generic class or with a context." Shannernanner 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support when disambiguation is necessary, use this short and simple add-on. Adding the word episode only helps when there is another conflict, such as an episode being named after a character. Jay32183 18:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC) striking my support if the change stays. Jay32183 20:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC) restoring support due to new wording. Jay32183 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Use the minimum disambiguation required. -Anþony 08:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, based on the WP:D advice of "choose whichever is simpler", and the example preference of "mythology" ( ~ NameOfSeries) over "mythological figure" ( ~ NameOfSeries episode). -- JHunterJ 04:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Of course, adding the term episode to the name of the series in the parenthetical remarks is appropriate when required for disambiguation. — Serge 16:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, per above. SergeantBolt (t,c) 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
(NameOfSeries episode)
  1. Support --Elonka 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - There are several episodes which are named after a character, place, event etc. even within that fictional universe, therefore appending 'episode' makes it clear it's an article about an episode, not the place, character etc. Marky1981 22:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support --EEMeltonIV 22:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support per Marky1981 --Mnemeson 22:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support--Opark 77 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 00:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support --EnsRedShirt 02:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Somewhat support I don't feel strongly about this, but if I had to make a choice it would be to include the word episode. -- Ned Scott 02:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Nohat 18:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC) In general I prefer generic nouns over fields as disambiguator
  12. Support Now, are the poll questions going to actually stay the same this time? :P To clarify - disambig only when necessary, and when necessary, use "(NameOfSeries episode)" -- Chuq 07:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Oggleboppiter 09:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support - Mickiscoole 03:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Further comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) It's actually not a primary consideration, but for me, I do a lot of work on Wikipedia, and routinely have about 2,000 articles on my watchlist at any one time, even with constant pruning. If I have time, yes, it's nice to be able to go through and check the most recent change on every single article I'm watching. More often, however, I'm just on Wikipedia for a few minutes, so I like to focus on the Lost articles, since I'm very familiar with that subject matter right now. Also, to be honest, the changes to the Lost episode articles are more likely to need patrolling for vandalism or original research than many of the others on my list. However, I don't have every single episode title memorized, and many of the episode titles don't look like episode titles (like The Greater Good or Maternity Leave). So having the additional suffix makes them easier to spot in my watchlist. And again, it's not a major issue with me, but it is still something that's helpful, which is why I added it to the "Pro" section. :) --Elonka 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, you can get a watchlist for just Lost episodes if you bookmark this link: [6]. Nohat 23:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with you on this point as well -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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

I agree, well stated. Shannernanner 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Imo it has evolved into more then being just "disambig." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree with you in this case. Normally yes preemtive disambig would not be advisable (i.e. 2005 novel, film, etc) but in this case i think the pro's far out weigh the cons. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, are you saying that disambiguation isn't disambiguation?
I think that the summary doesn't quite do justice to the first option. The current guideline isn't "first come, first served"; it's "disambiguate only when necessary". Specifically, it's "disambiguate only when there would be confusion if you didn't." True, it's not readily apparent that The New and Improved Carl Morrissey is about an episode of The 4400; but then, it's not readily apparent that The Man in the Brown Suit is an Agatha Christie mystery — until you click on the link. We don't title that page The Man in the Brown Suit (novel), because there's nothing else that would claim that title. Similarly, unless there's another article that could be titled The New and Improved Carl Morrissey, we shouldn't title the article The New and Improved Carl Morrissey (The 4400 episode).
I'm also confused by the obsession that some editors have with "consistency". Why should we fetishize the names of articles? In any article related to the television series, an episode's name will be piped anyway. It's only in a category that people will see that some articles have the suffix and some do not. Do Category:First Doctor serials and the other daughter categories of Category:Doctor Who serials look less "professional" because the Doctor Who WikiProject follows standard Wikipedia practice? For that matter, does Category:Agatha Christie novels look less "professional" because some articles have the (novel) suffix and some do not? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, well stated, I agree. Shannernanner 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make above is that televisions episodes are exceptional in that the episode titles are not usually known by anyone except avid fans of the series. I agree that it would be silly to use The Man in the Brown Suit (novel), because that book is generally referred to, and thought of, as "The Man in the Brown Suit," and not "Christie's 1924 novel" or "The one she wrote after Murder on the Links." TV episodes, on the other hand, are only known to most people as "last night's Heroes episode" or "the E.R. fifth season finale." I have become a pretty avid fan of Jericho, but I'd be hard pressed to give you the names of any of the episodes without looking at the episode list.
Because the most official name for a television episode is also the least-known and least-used, I think an exception to the Wikipedia standard is justified. --TobyRush 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Josiah, I agree with you in that there is nothing unprofessional about leaving off the disambiguation. I think it has more to do with ease-of-use than professionalism. --TobyRush 00:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; I'm just not convinced that there is a significant ease-of-use advantage in adding a suffix every time.
I also think that there are probably plenty of casual readers of Agatha Christie novels who might think of, say, Appointment with Death as "the one set in Jerusalem". I don't see that as an argument for moving that page to Appointment with Death (novel). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) My own feeling is that it's a bad idea to pick one and only one way of doing with it, and then trying to force that one method on every episode article for every series. I think that for some series, using the suffixes is a good idea, and for others, the "only in cases of disambiguation" works well. But some others appear to disagree and want to insist that there should be only one method of handling it. Maybe we should add a "Flexibility" option to the above poll? Then we could a sentence like this to the guidelines: Certain shows such as Star Trek and Lost may use different formats. When in doubt, it is best to make new episode articles consistent with the practice that is already in existence for that program. --Elonka 00:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Well, there are major advantages and disadvantages and minor advantages and disadvantages. Since many of the existing entries seemed to me to be extremely minor, it seemed reasonable to just make the lists as exhaustive as possible and let readers decide for themselves the significance each pro and con. As for whether any are redundant, I don't think any of my additions are; they all occurred to me as distinct advantages or disadvantages, although the distinction in some cases is somewhat subtle. Perhaps some related but subtly distinct pros and cons could be combined into single bullet points, but aren't we splitting hairs enough? Nohat 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
My view (as someone who is very peripheral to this discussion, on which I don't have immensely strong feelings) is that people are using the "Pro" and "Con" statements above to implicitly argue for their bias, rather than present a neutral laying out of various approaches. The statements seem overwhelmingly slanted towards Option 1, in other words. I find this objectionable as a debating style, frankly, and it makes me wonder why people feel they need to stack the deck in this manner. -- PKtm 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I removed everything but the options. Now, can get back to what's importante?
Elonka, no. Whatever the ultimate fallout is, a clear policy needs to be set, no exceptions. And I was talking about votes. People voting for guidelines two and three, specifically. We might as well merge them for now if people are just going to vote for both Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 00:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I would be OK with merging options 2 and 3 for now and then doing a sperate poll if that option prevails. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the removal may have been a bit hasty. There were some valid points on both sides that people should take into consideration. Please consider restoring the information, perhaps putting it in a slightly different context. Nohat 00:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I rephrased the characterization of the existing policy from "first come first served" to "disambiguate only when necessary". I think that's a more accurate description. Whether the pros and cons are kept or not, I hope this can be retained. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to start anything but alot of the pros/cons that were added were just restating WP:NC and WP:D -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 00:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think there are two arguments here that should be discussed separately:

  1. Should article titles for television episodes use parenthetical disambiguations in all cases, or only when the article title is ambiguous?
  2. When television article titles use parenthetical disambiguations (that is, regardless of which option is picked for choice 1), should the format of the parenthetical disambiguation be (SeriesName) or (SeriesName episode)?

The two questions are completely orthogonal, and the current format of the poll conflates them. Nohat 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For now, I think we should stick with the poll as it's structured, rather than making quick course changes. I see a lot of commentary here from people (including myself) who have the luxury of being able to check Wikipedia multiple times per day. But as I'm sure we all know, many Wikipedia editors who might like to offer an opinion, haven't even seen the poll yet. So I recommend letting it run for a few days, and give everyone a chance to weigh in. Meanwhile, we can also discuss proper wording for another poll, if one becomes necessary. Remember, Voting is Evil. We're not here for a "majority rules" option, we're here to try and have a good faith discussion, and see if we can find a consensus. For example, along with the "do it or don't do it" options, I still think it's worthwhile to discuss the "It depends" option, to allow flexibility in the titling systems for different television programs. --Elonka 01:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


I've updated the poll format a bit so people can state a preference for disabig titles and indicate support or oppose for disabig only when necessary. Those who wish to oppose the latter will need to re-sign under the new section. Sorry for the late change, but I did sort of suggest this early on (and then had to go to work). -- Ned Scott 02:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion could benefit from the KISS principle. Adding disambiguation when unnecessary just complicates things. If "Title" is redirecting to "Title (disambiguation)" the page always gets moved. Any argument that a particular type of article is an exception puts too much emphasis on trivia, which we also like to avoid. Jay32183 03:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the stupid votes for multiple policies and "opposition". Let's be clear: you cannot vote for two things, period. One or the other. By voting for one thing, you're voting against the other. Pick an option and stick with it. Double votes for dabbing and no dabing have been removed. If the voters really care, they can re-add ONE vote to ONE choice and no more. Honestly.... Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 07:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits. You clearly misunderstand the situation. There are two different things being polled here. If you took the time to read the discussion you would see that. -- Ned Scott 08:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A question

Just a quick question for those who are supporting sticking with the current policy. Are you voting that way simply because it's the current policy? Not to be rude I just haven't seen anyone give a good and valid reason as to why they prefer that. Mostly what I've seen from your group is "Thats the policy why change it?" I'm really curious to know. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 09:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines has a lot of that discussion. -- Ned Scott 09:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean; see Josiah Rowe and Nohat's reasonings, for example. Shannernanner 09:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Other than saying they dont want to change the current practice the only thing I've seen them ask is do the categories look less professional because some have the suffix and some don't. I would answer yes they do but that isn't the point. the point that I (and I think most of the others) am trying to make is that the suffix adds much needed context to the article title. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  10:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Then I don't believe you've read them; here are the diffs (diff 1, diff 2). Shannernanner 10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I read them, and all they seem to say (as far as I can tell) is regurgitate the existing policy. The only unique statement I see was this I'm also confused by the obsession that some editors have with "consistency". Why should we fetishize the names of articles? In any article related to the television series, an episode's name will be piped anyway. To which I would say we aren't obsessed, we just want consistency across large swaths of articles. The novel argument or character argument just doesn't wash with me. Where you might have a handful of characters in a series or novels in a trilogy or series, a TV show might have 100-200 episodes through out its run (and don't get me started on Dr. Who). I guess what I'm asking is why do you think it's so wrong to preemptively tag these large chunks of articles? Why do you think it's so wrong to be consistent across these large number of articles? -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  11:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It's wrong because it's pointless and has no end. The most prominent reason on the disambiguate-always side seems to be that Lost episode articles will be easier to find in Elonka's 2,000-item watchlist! By that logic, I should tag Steve Trachsel and José Reyes with (New York Mets player) because I'm a New York Mets fan. What a terrible reason. The name of episode articles is pretty trivial anyway since no one knows episodes by name - they'll only be able to find the episodes by scanning through lists with season numbers and summaries - and then the piped links will make the inconsistency invisible anyway. I'm still waiting for a decent reason for pre-emptive disambiguation in any case, let alone among Lost episode articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the current guideline because it's a good guideline. I haven't seen too many say they like the current convention solely because it's the current guideline so I don't know why you say that. I disagree that there's some level of "professionalism" gained by adding a word in parentheses to only this group of articles. Among other things, this opens the door to add (whatever) to every article title. The same reasoning applies almost anywhere - I'll add (baseball player) to every baseball bio, and (nation) to every nation article and (plant species) to every plant species article. What's the point to any of those? It doesn't make any of them look more "professional" and only makes life (very slightly) easier for editors, not readers. I like the term "fetishism" that someone is using here to describe making the article names fit the same pattern because that seems to be the only motivator here. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Living_people&from=Smith - should we add some common disambiguator to all of the living Smith articles just because all of the article titles on that screen don't match? Of course not. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If people are seeing the most prominent reason to "disambiguate" (I'll explain the quotes in a minute) as being the improvement of Elonka's formidable watchlist, then I think at least one argument is being overlooked. In my mind, the most prominent reason to do it is because episode titles alone are not complete or dependable identifiers of television episodes. Some TV series (The Simpsons, Friends) don't even display the titles as part of the episode at all. If you read a novel where each chapter was marked with only a number ("Chapter 1," "Chapter 2," and so on), would it be intuitive to have research on those chapters listed under the names that the author might have used but didn't actually include in the book?
That being said, I wonder if part of the issue here is semantics: the proposal is to somehow put the series name in a parenthesis after the episode title, something that is otherwise used in Wikipedia to indicate disambiguation. But I'm not sure that disambiguation is people are looking for here (which is why I put it in quotes above). The Jericho episode "The Four Horsemen" seems to better illustrate what I'm thinking of, but of course that's hopelessly unwieldly for an article name. Is there better way to identify episodes as being "chapters in a series" than by using the system normally used for disambiguation? --TobyRush 15:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Toby, this is a noteworthy point, and it leads to the question of whether it is necessary to provide this context in the name of an article. Any link to a specific episode of a television series should provide enough context for a reader to know that they're going to an article about an episode. The job of an article title isn't to provide context for those who don't know what the subject is — the article does that. If I came upon a contextless link to, say Adios Butler (a page I found by hitting "random article" a few times), I would have no idea what that was. But if I see a link to Adios Butler in a list of pacing horses on Harness racing, then I'll know that Adios Butler is a horse. My ignorance of the subject of horse racing is not a justification for renaming that article Adios Butler (horse).
The mere fact that most people who watch television don't take note of episodes' names does not mean that Wikipedia needs to provide that context in an article's title. I'd expect that if someone wanted to find an article on a particular episode of Lost, they'd probably go first to Lost, thence to Lost (TV series), thence to List of Lost episodes, where they'll find the episode they're interested in. At no point in that process does it matter whether the episode is titled Further Instructions or Further Instructions (Lost). So the fact that most television viewers don't know episode names is really irrelevant to the question of Wikipedia's naming conventions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The same point still holds though. If someone mentions Fred Clarke, not too many people will know who that is. Is that a reason to name his article, "Fred Clarke, Hall of Fame Major League baseball player"? I don't think so. The only people that are likely to ever find the Jericho episode article you mention are people who are looking for Jericho episode articles - whether it's disambiguated or not. If I click on The Four Horseman and it turns out to be a Jericho episode article, so what? I'll figure it out after the first sentence (assuming it follows WP:MOS, WP:LS and WP:GTL as it should). —Wknight94 (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If we, as Wikipedians, decide that individual television episodes are notable enough to have their own articles, then they are prima facie notable enough to stand alone on their titles. TV episode titles are not qualitatively more obscure and in need of contextualization than any other group of relatively obscure things, like Hindu gods, Negro League baseball players, or villain groups. The things in those groups don't need preemptive disambiguation, and neither do TV episodes. Nohat 18:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent point, Nohat. --TobyRush 18:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nohat and Wknight94 have explained the "keep it as is" position fairly well, but just for the record I'll add my reasons. I do support the existing policy, because it's a good policy. An article should have the shortest name that identifies its subject clearly, and without ambiguity. As TobyRush points out, parenthetical suffixes on Wikipedia exist to resolve ambiguity between titles, not to provide context for an article's subject. The article does that, ideally in its first line.

I don't think that it's "wrong" to be consistent — I just don't think that context-providing consistency is a value that needs to be taken into account in article naming. I do feel that the example of Agatha Christie novels is relevant — only the devotees of a particular author will recognize the titles of all of her works. Many of them are works in a series, not unlike the episodes of a television series. It's exactly parallel to the television example: if we must label The Unquiet Dead as The Unquiet Dead (Doctor Who episode), then by the same reasoning we should label Five Little Pigs as Five Little Pigs (Hercule Poirot novel). I really don't see the difference. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, though, I don't think it's exactly parallel; the most commonly used identifier for a novel is more often its title, whereas the most commonly used identifier for a television episode is something along the lines of "that one episode of [series name] where...". If we're looking for something analogous to "episode X of series Y", I think it's somewhere inbetween "novel X of author Y" and "chapter X of novel Y." It seems to me that someone who reads Agatha Christie novels, whether a "devotee" or simply a fan of fiction in general, is going to know the books by their names. But my brother-in-law, who can quote entire episodes of The Simpsons verbatim, can't tell you the episode names for any of them.
However, finding an exact analogy is going to be impossible because it's going to vary wildly within any category, television episodes included. My point is that television episodes represent a unique situation, and that as such it's worth exploring whether or not they warrant an exception to the general rule. In that regard, though, your point (the first line should provide the necessary context) and Nohat's point (if an episode has its own article, it's independent enough to be identified by the episode title) are absolutely correct. --TobyRush 19:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I also support the existing policy, not because it's the one that exists, but because it is a good, well thought out, policy. I mentioned the KISS principle above as to why the existing policy is good. Not using disambiguation is always the simplest thing to do, it just isn't always possible because of ambiguity. When ambiguity complicates things anyway, using a longer title is actually useful, but the longer title should still be the simplest one possible. The first time I read the policy I thought, "Well, that makes sense." which is why I used it when naming articles from Xiaolin Showdown. Those articles may not be very good yet, but they all have the simplest name they can, and I've had no trouble keeping track of them in my watchlist even when they don't say (Xiaolin Showdown) after them. Jay32183 19:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My position in support of suffixes is this:
  • In the case of Lost, the majority of the episodes already have the suffix, since the show creators like to re-use specific phrases, so it makes sense to add suffixes to the minority of episodes that don't have it, in order to keep a consistent look and feel.
  • By the nature of the show, the episode articles are highly interlinked, and we frequently have to link to multiple different episodes within each article, so it makes sense to use a consistent titling scheme for ease of editing, rather than constantly having to check to see which episode has the suffix, and which one doesn't.
  • Ease of navigation for the average reader: If they are stepping through articles with the navigation box, I think it looks odd to see that most of the episodes do use the suffix, but some do not. Most of our casual readers are going to be oblivious to the subtleties of disambiguation, so I don't think it's an issue for them. The method of only adding suffixes to episode titles that absolutely need it for disambiguation, ends up looking "random" to most people, resulting in a look that is unprofessional and confusing.
  • Another advantage to including suffixes, is the watchlist issue, though I will repeat again that this is not my primary motivation, it's just an added benefit, to quickly be able to identify which items in my watchlist are Lost episodes.
  • With consistent suffixes, the category listing looks cleaner, rather than being an apparent hodgepodge of episodes with and without suffixes, which frankly looks like an error: Category:Lost episodes.
And lastly, I continue to be bewildered as to why people feel it's so necessary to make a strong stand on this "no suffix" point. I honestly don't see that there would be any major negative impact on Wikipedia by allowing all of the episodes of a particular television show, such as Lost, to use a consistent titling system. The Star Trek episodes in Category:Star Trek episodes have been using consistent suffixes in a stable manner for a long time, and I haven't seen any indication that this causes mass confusion. To my mind, the Star Trek episode articles and related categories look clean, consistent, and professional. Further, if someone were to go through and attack the Star Trek system by insisting on moving episodes to different non-suffix titles simply because of an obsessive need to "enforce" a guideline that isn't even policy, I would see that as disruptive, and in violation of WP:POINT. --Elonka 21:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You're still simply calling the current guideline obsessive while using arguments for your viewpoint which frankly sound obsessive. You're saying you want consistency across Lost episode titles while simultaneously saying consistency across different TV episode conventions (Lost vs. Simpsons, etc.) is not important. Your first, third and fifth points above are almost identical - going towards some sort of lack of professionalism which I just can't buy at all (I can't see how any reader would care that some of the articles have (Lost episode) after them and some don't). Your second point goes just as much for most other subjects (I know I'm repeating myself but do you think I write an article about a baseball player without ever referencing any of his teammates or opponents? Should I put (baseball player) on the end of each one just in case two of them are named Smith and Jones and would need disambiguation?). The watchlist issue can be solved easily - prune your watchlist if you only want to maintain certain articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I actually find disambiguated titles helpful - and using them arbitrarily would completely diffuse that helpfulness. Disambiguated titles are an instant indicator that there are other articles and subjects which are similar and lets me - as a reader - simply remove the (whatever) part of the title and quickly see what other articles are named similarly. In the case of Lost episodes, it would be a quick way to find what the episode name is referring to. When I run across an instance where the article without the (whatever) just redirects back to the article with (whatever), that's obnoxious to me! For an inexperienced user who isn't familiar with redirects, that could send them into a very frustrating circular loop. "I remove the (whatever) and I just keep coming to the article with the (whatever)!" Talk about unprofessional... it almost looks like a bug in the system. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, Wiki-Knight, and that's one of my points, frankly. Still, I fear this may not be getting either side very far. I mean, the excessive dabbers can argue for their perceived pros and we can denounce their practices with our perceived cons, but is any side right? Is either side actually acknowledging or diffusing the others' argument? I'm just beginning to wonder if discussion isn't pointless...Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well it's certainly getting repetitive anyway. To me, it would take a very convincing argument to overturn such a longstanding guideline and I'm not hearing anything anywhere near convincing. I can't shake the feeling that this exact argument went on three or four years ago and is how the guideline came to be in the first place - and it will probably be repeated again every so often. Can't wait... :( —Wknight94 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Should one of the disambiguation examples be adopted, there is also the problem of series which are named identically but came out at different times. I can think of only one series this applies to, and that is Battlestar Galactica. Currently, for example, we have Take the Celestra (Battlestar Galactica) and Act of Contrition (Battlestar Galactica), both using the pre-emptive disambiguation naming convention, except that the former is from the original 1978 series and the latter from the 2004 remake. Only The Hand of God (Battlestar Galactica) is disambiguated any further because that episode title occurs in both versions. My own personal suggestion, beyond eliminating pre-emptive disambiguation, is for the above examples to become, respectively, Take the Celestra (Battlestar Galactica 1978) and Act of Contrition (Battlestar Galactica 2004). Note that I am not a big fan of making double parenthethis in article names, which is why I did not put them around the years, but if this is an issue, perhaps a hyphen instead? --BlueSquadronRaven 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Either way there's going to be ambiguity. I'd recommend listing all ambiguous titles with the year of the series for clarity. On the unlikely chance that excessive dabbing wins, add the years to them all. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Unless the excessive dabbing wins the year should only be added when necessary, because an episodes in both had the same title. The disambiguation is only for Wikipedia to have separate file names, it's not for people to search for a particular topic, but separate to similar topics from each other. Jay32183 00:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This is another very nice example of why not to disambiguate unless necessary. When you do, you're just categorizing - and Wikipedia already has categorizing functionality. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the majory argument for using disambiguation is consistency. On the same principal, having all TV series using the same title format (either disambiguation or no disambiguation) is also very important in terms of consistency. Which means doing massive numbers of moves one way or the other. May as well be no disambiguation because it seems like most TV series do not have the disambiguation.

Also, can someone change the poll questions around? The way they're formatting now is confusing. The "opposse" sections are not needed. A vote for support in one of the three options shows opposse to the other two. Right now, there're people voting support for more than one option. And some people voting oppose on the two options they don't support, and some people not.

Have either just three options and people show support for one of the three. Or have two questions, the first addressing whether we need disambiguation. And the second for what type of disambiguation to use (for people who are pro-disambiguation). --`/aksha 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Poll changes

I'm not sure who changed/refactored the poll questions, but I now find that I have my name under an item that I do not wish to vote for. "disambiguate only when necesary, and then disambiguate with (SeriesName episode)" is NOT the same as "disambiguate all with (SeriesName episode)". Of course there have been so many edits and changes to the page since then, I don't want to attempt to change them back and risk doing the same thing to someone else. All I can suggest is everyone CHECK their votes! -- Chuq 02:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka seems to have been the one to change it [7]. I thought it was clear that we were discussion two separate issues, to disambig only when necessary, and what disambig title to use. I too found myself under as section that said "always add" which is NOT what I voted for. I've changed the sections back and removed the "oppose" sections because they're redundant to the "support" section of "Disambig only when necessary".
Now I know that I did make a change to the poll, but that was after some discussion and the change didn't change the meaning to people's votes. At this point we know what people support, but some who are opposed might have to re-sign under the "oppose" of the first part. This is different than actually changing what a person supports.
Are we clear on this are do we have to start over? I'm really hoping that this is clear now and we can just keep moving forward with collecting information, but if anyone feels strongly enough then we should restart the whole thing. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I may have added to the confusion in an earlier attempt to clarify things. I thought that the three options were meant to be "disambiguate only as needed", "always add (seriesname)" and "always add (seriesname episode)", and tried to clarify the titles accordingly. I apologize if that was an error. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely not simple, but here's how I think the poll is supposed to work as it is/was—depending on the edits made after/during this post—at 08:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC): the first part "disambiguate only when necessary" contains support and oppose votes. The "Oppose" stands for the "always disambiguate" votes. Right now, the "oppose" side is not fully represented as the system used to be a list of three separate policies, not two separate debates.
Voting for either "<series>" or "<series> ep" does not mean you're voting to disambiguate always. It's only a vote for which of the two options to use, even if "disambiguate only whe necessary" wins.
Currently, "dab when necessary" and "<series> ep" are both winning. Should this stay that way, the final result will be to follow the general pre-existing policy and always identify an article as being an "episode" of a series. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and added clarifiers to the poll itself. I tried to make my descriptions as neutral as possible, but if bias has slipped in, I call on others to fix it. Nohat 08:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused

I'm confused now. Have you changed the poll to where if (like me) you favor preemptive dabing I have to oppose the first option and support the second option(which ever one I prefer)? If thats the case I think we need to start the voting over and re-inform people, as I'm sure there are lots of people who came in here, made their choice and left nary to return again. Essentially scewing the vote. To be honest I think the poll was started prematurely anyway before the options were fully discussed. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the format very slightly and clarified the headers to try to reduce this confusion. I don't want cause trouble, though, so someone please feel free to revert these changes if you think it's out of line. Once we determine an acceptible format for the poll (I agree, Argash, maybe we started the poll a little soon), I volunteer to help send messages to previous voters, asking them to return and confirm that their opinions are accurately recorded. --TobyRush 17:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would have been good to clarify a format for the poll and stuck with it, instead of changing it so many times, muddling the consistency of the votes. I believe several of the votes for the disambig appendages are meant as oppose votes for the first option, per the original poll format; it would be good if the current voters could be notified of the new format. And if the format could stay static now. Shannernanner 17:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The last revision before the poll was changed is [8]. Here is a list of everyone who had voted before the poll was changed: Izzy Dot, Shannernanner, wknight94, Josiah Rowe, Nohat, Khaosworks, Thedemonhog, Ned Scott, Argash, Elonka, MatthewFenton, SigmaEpsilon, Marky1981, EEMeltonIV, Mnemeson, Opark 77. They should all be notified on their talk pages that the poll has changed slightly and that they should double check their vote to make sure it corresponds to their actual preferences. Nohat 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
For whatever reason this didn't occur to me before, but I think that the previous voters who only voted support on the current "first poll" should be notified that they can also vote on the second items (which disambig to use "only when necessary"). Shannernanner 19:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as someone in the list above, count me as an "I don't care" to the second question. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the poll can even be salvaged at this point, it's been changed so much. I have reworded things to indicate the way that I thought was our intention at the beginning of the poll. In the meantime, I think that it's important that we continue talking about this, as this matter is obviously not going to be solved by polling alone. --Elonka 20:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Your rewording has now caused people's ideas to be invalidated from after the change. There are actually two things that need to be discussed. I still consider the word episode superfluous when the disambiguation is necessary, unless there is further conflict, and I should be able to voice that opinion as well as not adding superfluous disambiguation in the first place. I am very much against using article titles in the way that categories are intended to work. Marking an article as an episode of a particular series is a job for categories, not the titles. Jay32183 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The poll has actually only changed once, and other poll changes have been reverted. After I had made the first change I noted that people who wanted to oppose "disambig when necessary" would need to re-sign under the new section, but all existing votes would not change their support meaning. The only thing that would be lost is how many people directly oppose "disambig when necessary", so that would be the only data we would have to "recover". The other (now reverted) changes, on the other hand, change much more than that and really make a mess of everything. As long as we are able to contact everyone who wishes to be counted as opposing "disambig when necessary" then all other data will be true. -- Ned Scott 21:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The second polling option looks like it should be about what disambiguation method should be used, but then the discription says that I would be supporting that some tv series should be an exception to the disambiguate only when necessary. I would like to support disambiguation by (NameofSeries) when possible and (NameofSeries episode) only to avoid further confusion. I just want to be sure that that is the idea I'm getting across when I put my name on something. Jay32183 22:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
What was done subsequent to my previous comment was exactly what I was talking about; the polling format should stay static, as it invalidates users' votes and makes it very difficult to draw any legitimate conclusion from the poll. The previous format — prior to the last "reversion" — was a good one, which seemed to be understood and followed, as far as I can tell. I agree with Jay32183's comments as well. Shannernanner 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
First: They're not votes. This is not a vote. This is what's called a poll. See Wikipedia:Straw polls. Second: The polling format has most definitely not stayed static. Here's what it looked like at the beginning, when we listed the various options, along with pro's and con's: [9] , but at this point, I think it's pretty well FUBAR. One possible way to handle it now, is that we close the poll, and proceed with discussion about the core issue (whether or not there can be flexibility in how television episodes are named) to see if we can find a meeting of the minds. We can also discuss a new set of poll questions that we all agree with ahead of time, rather than constantly changing them on the fly as has been going on. I am still willing to continue to discuss this issue in good faith, to try and find a consensus solution. I think that there's an important point in Wikipedia:Guideline which states, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Which is what my own position has been, is that the Star Trek episodes have been a clear and stable exception to WP:DAB rules, and that it makes sense to make an exception for the Lost articles as well, especially since the majority of people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost already agreed on how episode titles were to be handled. Note that I'm not saying that the method which Lost uses should be enforced on all television programs -- it makes sense to me to allow the editors that are most involved with a set of articles, to figure out the best way of handling those articles. I don't think anyone is here because they want to damage Wikipedia. Please, we need to assume good faith on the part of everyone involved. Can we find a way to discuss this issue, that doesn't involve a black and white polarized "Right and wrong" debate? Is there no room for compromise? --Elonka 00:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If we're talking about guidelines as descriptive of what actually happens on Wikipedia, rather than being prescriptive of what we think should happen, then "letting the group of editors who work on articles for each television series" is the existing guideline. The Star Trek editors decided a while back to put parenthetical suffixes on all episode articles. The Doctor Who editors, by contrast, decided to follow the general Wikipedia guideline, and disambiguate only when necessary. If we can't reach a new consensus on this page, then Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) should be amended to describe what the actual practice is.
However, I don't think that we've reached that point yet. In fact, I think that we may be able to reach a consensus to support the guideline as it currently stands — that is, to follow general Wikipedia guidelines, and disambiguate only when necessary. What I'd like to hear is whether there is any way to follow the existing guidelines and still address the concerns of those who'd rather have articles in a given category look "consistent". We can keep "varying by series" as a fall-back option, if consensus proves impossible, but let's try to see if there's room for compromise short of that. OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I referred to it as a poll; your reply comes off as rather confrontational. I was not saying that the poll had stayed static, but requesting that it stay static rather than constantly changing as it had been. Shannernanner 00:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to Elonka's last comment in this section: You're right, it's a poll, not a vote. With that in mind, we are just collecting information from this poll. With the current format, changed as it is, we can still say there is reasonable credibility for the data collected. We won't be ending this poll right away, and that will give all editors enough time to re-list an oppose "motion" under the oppose section for "disambig only when necessary". Since it's not a vote, and we're just collecting information, I don't really see the need to restart the poll (but still let it be open for at least a few more days, if not a week or so).

Second, the claim that the disambig titles were apart of the Lost episode mediation has been really bugging me. It's completely false. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes, and then the message that the mediator posted about the outcome to the top of Talk:List of Lost episodes here.

Third, yes, guidelines should be treated with common sense, and exceptions should be made where reasonable. We all agree on that. However, what many of us are saying is that you are not presenting a reasonable exception, or even one that could be considered common sense. Flexibility can be a good thing, but without a good reason it becomes a problem. -- Ned Scott 03:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a vote

I am actually amazed by how many people involved in this discussion, who think they know disambiguation rules backwards and forwards, are completely oblivious to how wrongheaded the idea of "voting" is on Wikipedia. This is not a vote. This is a discussion. This is not a "majority rules" situation. This is not a case of trying to find a "winner" or a "loser". The poll serves only to get a rough idea of where people stand on a complex issue. What it is showing me, is that we do not have a clear consensus, and that we need to keep talking about this, in good faith. I encourage everyone to eliminate the words "vote", "policy", "winning" and "losing" from their vocabulary, as these words are not helpful. Please instead very carefully read Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Guideline (where it specifically talks about how "voting" on guidelines is a common error), and WP:VIE. --Elonka 20:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the typical mantra of someone whose idea is not gaining much support. How much longer do you propose this discussion should continue? And how many more times after this? Can we please draw the line somewhere? This is the 3rd page and like the 8th or 9th section I've posted a message regarding the same subject. Attrition, attrition, attrition. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. I think it's very clear at this point the consensus is to disambig only when necessary. We can keep going and keep discussing, we can even restart the poll, I won't object to such things, but.. yeah.. we really don't need to. -- Ned Scott 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll object to restarting the poll. Vehemently. I'm trying to WP:AGF here but I'm sensing a deliberate stalling tactic being employed. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I followed Elonka's suggestion, and re-read Wikipedia:Consensus with this discussion in mind. I was struck by this sentence:
However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus.
I don't think that we're there yet, but I do think that we're heading towards a consensus that as a general rule, television episode article names should follow the same disambiguation guidelines as other article names. The question is whether there is a way to keep this as a general guideline, while still acknowledging the concerns of those who feel that "consistency" is an important value in article naming. That's how we'll turn this into a genuine consensus. Anyone got any ideas? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Josiah, I agree with you that the general guideline is a good one, but it should allow flexibility for those cases where it's leading to something inconsistent. The wording that I recommended adding to the Naming conventions page under "Episodes" [10] would result in a paragraph that says, "Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g. Bart the Genius, but The Sting (Futurama). Certain shows such as Star Trek and Lost may use different formats. When in doubt, it is best to make new episode articles consistent with the practice that is already in existence for that program." How does that sound? --Elonka 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
We may end up there, but I'd still like us to try for a more — irony of ironies — consistent approach. A guideline that says "certain shows may use different formats" weakens itself, and I'd rather we had a guideline that could actually, y'know, guide. That said, if we can't come to a stronger consensus, what you've proposed works as a descriptive guideline of what actually happens on Wikipedia, and I'd be OK with it as a fall-back position. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to chime in - again - I don't think anyone here to simply reaffirm the current guideline. They're here to decide whether to apply the current guideline to the Lost episode articles. Let's please not suddenly say, "Oh well, I guess the guideline will stay the way it is - okay, so let's see if anyone wants an exception for Lost". They don't. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it all seems pretty okay to me. I've made comments to those whose votes may been misinterpreted in hopes that they'll return to correct any perceived mistake. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion

Please forgive me but I have not read the 66 KB discussion thus far. I would suggest that disambiguation be done as necessary but "Title (series episode)" be created as a redirect regardless. My reason is simple: when writing episode lists or cross-linking episodes you can guarantee that you have not made an ambiguous link which can be absurdly prevalent when episodes have common names like Genesis (of which there are no less than 5 episodes named this). It is nigh impossible to auto-disambiguate a link and it is a much better visitor experience to skip through a redirect (which requires no extra work by the visitor) than to be faced with a dab page, or worse, the wrong article completely. Always having "Title (series episode)" whether it is the actual article or a redirect is the best choice from the perspective of a reader.

So, as long as "Title (series episode)" gets me to the correct article...I don't care what is decided above. Cburnett 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. I could support this: keep the article at the name that follows general Wikipedia guidelines, but always create a redirect with "Title (series episode)". Is this the compromise solution I was looking for above? If so — wow, that was quick. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I kinda figured that was a given... —Wknight94 (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I have officially been made to feel dumb! you sir are a genius! This would be a perfect solution -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is the way the Lost articles have always been - or maybe that's just because of the move battles that have been going on. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I like this idea as well. Depending on whether the name is unique or not:
Unique: EpisodeTitle is article; EpisodeTitle (SeriesName), EpisodeTitle (episode) and EpisodeTitle (SeriesName episode) are all redirects
Non-unique: EpisodeTitle (SeriesName episode)* is article; EpisodeTitle is disambig; EpisodeTitle (SeriesName)* and EpisodeTitle (episode) are redirects.
* - Swap these two around if consensus goes that way. -- Chuq 02:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Always making the redirect would solve one of the problems claimed by the people wanting to deviate from the existing policy, and redirects are cheap. Even though I think pre-emptive dabbing is bad, making a redirect for any reasonable search term is good. Within articles readers will never see the dabbing because the links will be piped, so the consistant look will be there on tables and nav boxes. The reasoning behind minimizing the dabbing is to keep Wikipedia elegant and simple. Seeing no dab link to a dab just seems weird, but dab redirecting to no dab is definitely done, because recoding the pages that link to a redirect requires more server space than letting a redirect sit there. Jay32183 04:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason that we can't just do this with redirects, is because the title that displays at the top of the page, or in a category, is the "primary" title. To explain why this would be a problem, look here: Category:Star Trek: Voyager episodes. This category has been stable for months, and I think it looks clean and professional. But what's important to understand, is that some of the people in the discussion on this page want to attack the articles in this category, and move them around to different styles of titles, through a misplaced notion of "enforcing" disambiguation guidelines. My own feeling is that the Star Trek category looks just fine the way it is and doesn't need "fixing.". Further, I believe that it makes sense to have wording in the Naming conventions guidelines that says that for some shows, it makes sense to use consistent suffixes. In fact, that's what the guideline did say since February 2006, until in September when Ned Scott went in out of the blue and vandalized it without consensus.[11], and then tried to insist that re-adding the information was what required consensus![12] So now, we have this longwinded "new" discussion here, which is being further confused by a few editors who are posting multiple times per day and attacking anyone who disagrees with them, so that they can force through a "majority" to justify disruption of the Star Trek categories. This is a violation of WP:POINT, and I wish more people would see it for the disruption that it is. --Elonka 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
There is more to Wikipedia than just articles about Star Trek episodes. Sure, all the entries in the category page have the same parenthetical disambiguation, satisfying some bizarre fetish for things to line up on category pages, but it makes Wikipedia as a whole more inconsistent, hard to use, and unpredictable, not less. You should consider the what's best for the project as a whole, and not what's best for the little corner that you care about. What Wikipedia needs are articles whose titles follow a consistent, project-wide system for disambiguation, not a warren of exceptions and loopholes that allow a group of obsessive fans to pack articles' titles with extraneous information where the only tangible benefit is merely an aesthetic one. Nohat 06:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and I didn't know "we" were "only" discussing Star Trek episodes. Shannernanner 06:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with Nohat. Furthermore, coming into the discussion when I did, I don't see any evidence of bad faith on anyone's part. And actually, whether one user may or may not be motivated by bad faith isn't really material to the discussion: a fairly wide spectrum of Wikipedians is now participating in the conversation, and that's a good thing. I, for one, have no desire to cause disruption on Star Trek pages. The Star Trek WikiProject has been notified of this discussion, and its members are welcome in this discussion. Personally, I don't think we need to start moving pages unless we get a clear consensus; indeed, moving pages now might be a violation of WP:POINT. However, a broad discussion among Wikipedians — which this is — is not. Let's assume good faith and get on with working towards consensus, shall we? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I really cannot see how the Star Trek point could be considered a sound argument. Wikipedia does encourage "common sense" exceptions to guidelines, but "I want to be different" is not a common sense reason. The exception is being made on the assumption that the existing policy has no purpose, but it does have a purpose. That purpose is to keep article titles simple, so that readers don't have difficulty getting into the article. No sound reason has been presented at all why any exception should be made against that reasoning in episode articles. Readers should not be able to get all the information they need to know out of a title, if they could then there would be no articles, only titles. Pointing out that no one complained until recently is definitely not a good point; people are syaing something now, deal with it now. Also, there was never any reason given as to why Star Trek was an exception to begin with, Ned was completely right to remove that from the guideline page. It confused me the first time I read that. I thought "What makes Star Trek so special?" and it turns out the answer is nothing. There's no reason Star Trek should be treated differently as there's nothing different about it from other tv series that makes the existing guideline not act exactly the same. Jay32183 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Page moves do not make something "unstable". I started to move pages per these guidelines, something I feel is totally acceptable even with the current discussion. To get as upset as you are over this is far more disruptive than the moves themselves. Did those page moves hurt anyone? I just can't understand how you feel this is hurting anything, at all. Where is the great injustice, the disruption, the negative side effect? I checked for double redirects on all of those page moves, so in all reality... nothing "bad" happened at all. Doing nothing does not make something stable, and doing something does not make something unstable. The discussion on this very page continues to back this all up, and you've failed to show how this is harmful or disruptive.
Second, calling my edits vandalism is immature, rude, and downright disrespectful. I find this highly ironic coming after your absurd accusations on my talk page. I've fully explained my reasons for the change, and many other users on this talk page have agreed that the Star Trek example was a bad addition. Again, you attack me personally by calling my efforts "attacks". Who am I attacking? What do I have to personally gain from any of this? This is so bizarre, before this I thought of you as a really nice editor and wouldn't have thought something like this would become a dispute. You dug through my edit history to yell at me for using the word "fuck" in the edit summary for The Diarrhea Song. Why can't you just discuss this without trying to drag people into the mud? -- Ned Scott 07:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Ned, even though I agree that the Star Trek example was a bad precedent, I personally would not advise making those moves now. We're heading towards a clear consensus, but we're not quite there yet, and it would be better to wait until everyone is either on board with this, or at least knows that it's coming. Just my 2¢ worth. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I had started the page moves when I thought this discussion was going to blow over, and I mean no offense to anyone when I say that. The pages were being moved before this RfC was taking place and the discussion I was in was still Lost-based. Also Category:Star Trek: Voyager episodes is not the right cat, you mean to talk about Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes (ironically, there is one article without a disambig title in Voyager, done by some other user back in May). I've clearly stopped after seeing that ... well.. we'd be here for a while. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Ned — didn't mean to rebuke you for something you weren't doing. It's hard to see page moves, since they don't show up in contribs and you've got to go to the log page, or check the individual article. I assumed that Elonka was accurate in her description of what was happening. Mea culpa. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to make it look like this entire discussion is "Ned's fault," but for the record, a history of Ned's page moves can be seen here: [13]. He has been engaging in multiple non-consensus moves on both the Lost articles and Star Trek articles, along with edit wars, to the point where the Lost guidelines page is protected [14], progress after a unanimous mediation resolution has been stalled, and, as we can see, there's a major firestorm here at WP:NC-TV. Aside from the multiple non-consensus moves, a further look at Ned's contrib history shows that he's been going through redirect pages and blanking them [15] and then re-creating them a few seconds later [16] so as to "lock" his moves, making them undoable except with an admin's intervention. And since Ned brought it up, yes, by all means take a look at User_talk:Ned_Scott#Civility, where confirmation can be seen that multiple users have been telling him to calm down, and to stop the disruption and incivility.[17] --Elonka 08:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Piling on more personal attacks really does make your point so much better. I've already linked to that section on my talk page, and I believe it speaks for itself. Three editors who disagreed with me in disputes decided to pile on. I invite anyone to actually look into those discussions and they will clearly see that being civil really hasn't been an issue. My dispute with Matthew was removing a "goal" from WikiProject The 4400 that aimed at making episode guides, a violation of WP:NOT. See the edit history for the exchange of words and see if it was uncivil. The other user, Fahrenheit451, was in a dispute with multiple editors over a fair use debate on Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Guidelines for "low" and "high" resolution. If you would like to point out where I was uncivil with them then please do.
The little revert war on the Lost episode guideline page wasn't really the best thing to do, but you were just as much apart of that as I was. Again, I continue to point out specifically, the mediation NEVER ONCE COMMENTED ON NAMING CONVENTIONS FOR EPISODE ARTICLES. It was not apart of the mediation, and it was not the results of a consensus. How many times do I have to repeat that?
I've already explained myself about the Star Trek articles. And, as I've pointed out, I'm not the only one who's moved those articles, and I'm clearly not the only one who thinks their naming is in error. I only moved those articles when I thought this issue was just being dragged out and would blow over. Since this has become a bigger debate I have not moved any Star Trek or Lost articles, yielding to the discussion.
I did intentionally move articles and then edit the redirect to prevent an undo. Again, wasn't probably the best thing to do at the time, but in all fairness you did the exact same thing to all the other articles I didn't touch. As it stand now no Lost episode article can be freely moved back or forth, a childish move that both of us made in the heat of a debate. I apologies for that, I was wrong, but I won't take your blame too.
I'm done defending myself. I've made mistakes in how I approached this dispute, probably because I didn't even think highly of the dispute. None the less, the arguments and statements presented are still completely valid, no matter how flawed an editor I may or may not be. When you get into a debate that (for some strange reason) gets this heated you will find people like Elonka who will try to drag your name through the mud just because they disagree with you. Weeks before this, while I was still on Elonka's good side, she gave me a barnstar. I don't really think my editing habits have changed much in that time, but her attitude towards me sure did change when I disagreed. -- Ned Scott 09:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds like we're all reaching a group hug point here so let's let this particular thread die before it gets nastier. Let's leave all of the articles and redirects the way they are for now in the hopes this whole discussion comes to some conclusion (if such a thing is possible). It's beneficial to have them all locked at the moment - and I'd unlock them if I thought otherwise. In cases like this, two or three people always feel the urge to declare the discussion concluded and all of a sudden a wild move war breaks out. Ordinarily, I'd come down on intentionally blocking page moves - and I will be happy to unblock them myself when this discussion is concluded - but, in this case, it turns out to be helpful. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wknight94, I realize that you are a fairly new admin, so I just wanted to doublecheck: You do realize that using your admin tools to get involved in any way in this issue, would be unethical, and a complete violation of administrator policy? You are welcome to participate in this discussion as a normal editor, and you're even welcome to get angry and disagree -- but as soon as you start threatening to take advantage of your admin access to push your own agenda, you would be out of line. I sincerely hope that you are not considering this, and that you will abide by the answer that you gave when your adminship was being debated a couple months ago, where you yourself said, I don't believe in admin's using admin powers to resolve their own disputes. Even when the powers are used appropriately, it gives the appearance of impropriety. Whichever way this discussion goes, for or against your point of view, I would hope that you would realize that it would be better for any necessary actions to be taken by a completely noninvolved admin. --Elonka 17:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the one intentionally editing redirects solely to block page moves. I'm also not the one shifting the same discussion from location to location in the hopes of shaking the opposition. You should probably leave the Wikipedia ethics lectures to someone else. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh...iIf I may inject here, creating a redirect doesn't pervent a move to that title. For example, the article "Koragg the Knight Wolf can still be moved to the title Leanbow or the title Koragg. In the case of the former option, Leanbow was created as a redirect and only has the edit of creation in its history. Wikimedia setup allows for this to be easily overwritten in a move. Similarly, Koragg, the latter option, has only the edit of a move from that title to Koragg the Knight Wolf. In both cases, the end result is that an article can still move into a title held by a redirect with only one edit in its history. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. And yet somehow, each of the current Lost episode redirects happen to have a second minor edit to them, e.g. [18], [19], [20]... But I'm sure someone whose user page says they wish to be an admin someday would never do that on purpose so let's WP:AGF. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Shows that they are part of a series?!

Sorry but I have to ask about this comment saying disambiguating all of the titles "shows that they are part of a seires (sic)". The only place the disambiguated names would all be seen at once is in the category — but, by definition, just being in the category shows they are in a series! Folks in opposition to question 1 above apparently want to use disambiguation to do categorization. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you there. in a similar vein, insisting that the names always contain "(SeriesName episode)" is like showing that the episodes cannot stand alone by themselves, they must be regarded as part of the whole. Does this mean they should just all be merged into "SeriesName (season x)?" There are sites out there like http://www.lostpedia.com which we could just link to. Of course it would be sad to see all the effort put into the articles to disappear.
This is one of the good things about 24 (TV series) - due to the nature of the show, there is an episode called "2 p.m. - 3 p.m." every season, and that episode is intrinsically linked to the rest of the episodes of that series. As a result, 24 episodes do not have individual articles, just season articles, and everyone seems happy with that! -- Chuq 04:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I am willing to bet that most people don't have a dang clue what an individual episode is named in a long running TV series. Can you name all of the simpsons episdoes by heart?? I am a huge fan amd can only name a few.. Take a look at this from a readers stand point, rather then an editors.. Your wandering through the episodes and the titles all have (Series) after them, until you hit one. You would be disoriented for a moment as you wonder if you accidently clicked something else. You figure out you didn't but you would be mad that there wasn't consistancy with in the article group. I am just trying to make wikipedia easier to use for the readers..EnsRedShirt 09:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it works like that. What we're trying to say is that the articles just are not "floating around" like this. Most readers will find the episode article via a List of episodes article, a category, or a direct link from another article. This is how the vast majority of us come to such articles, and the actual title of the article won't change this process at all (for the reader). -- Ned Scott 09:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. It's the "wandering through" part where your argument breaks down. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, there are plenty of other "series" on Wikipedia which are not indicated as such in their articles' titles. If a reader were paging through the James Bond novels, they would go from Casino Royale to Live and Let Die (novel), to Moonraker, to Diamonds Are Forever (novel). Readers of the Discworld series would go from Wyrd Sisters to Pyramids (Discworld) to Guards! Guards! to Eric (novel). A reader looking at albums by the Beatles goes from With the Beatles to A Hard Day's Night (album) to Beatles for Sale to Help! (album). Nobody worries about whether such a reader would be "disoriented" by the lack of consistency of the members of these series.
The fact that most people don't know the names of television episodes is immaterial, as I've said before. The job of a Wikipedia article's title isn't to provide context for the article's subject: the article does that. Nor is it to categorize them: the category system does that. The job of the title is to provide a file name that's clear, accurate, and unambiguous. Just because most readers won't know the names of episodes of The Simpsons is not an argument for moving Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire to Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire (The Simpsons episode). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well said Josiah! -- Chuq 23:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. — Serge 16:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

Okay, who wants to decide whether this discussion is concluded? We've had two reverts at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) today so folks are apparently getting antsy. The noise has died down a bit here too. I'm not going to be the one to do anything drastic (and I never intended to, Elonka) but this is a little nudge. :) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep.. couldnt agree with you more.. definitly a consensus for the suffix . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I was just thinking the same thing, Wknight. I was trying to sum up the arguments for my own benefit, and came up with this:

The solution must:

  • Allow readers to easily find the article in question
  • Allow other readers to easily find other articles with the same name

It would be preferrable to have a solution which:

  • Does not create an exception to WP:D
  • Allows linked lists of episodes to be formatted alike
  • Provides a predictable format for editors to use when creating links
  • Establishes a consistent naming convention which can be used by all TV shows

It would be nice to have a solution which:

  • Provides series context within the article name
  • Causes episode articles to be named consistently in watchlists and category lists
In my mind, Cburnett's suggestion above meets all but the "it would be nice" criteria, and thus is the closest we've come to a consensus. I think it is extremely important for us to realize that we are attempting to create a guideline here, and as such, it would be perfectly appropriate for individual TV shows (Star Trek, Lost) to propose and adopt exceptions to it based on consensus among those shows' editors. It seems to me that those exceptions should be addressed and discussed on project pages for individual shows, and not here. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 18:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Great summary, Toby. --Elonka 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a slight problem with what you've said about exceptions. Wikipedia recommends "common sense" exception. I want to do it differently is not a "common sense" exception. "Common sense" exceptions arise from special cases. There has been nothing to suggest that any tv series is a special case from the rest or that tv episode articles are a special case from any other article. Basically, you can't be deifferent for the sake of being different, especially when complaining about consistency. The redirects are a good solution to handle the editors' problem of not knowing which format each link should take. Consistency in linked lists was never a problem because all the links are piped anyway, same with navboxes. Finding of articles would come from other articles if readers did not already know the name of the episode, searching won't help. The "would be nice" things are things that are mostly selfish and overly obsessive. Categories don't need to be "pretty" and editors should know what's on their watchlists, not in the sense that anyone can name everything they are watching, but in the sense that if you see an article title they know what the article is. Jay32183 19:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, this whole discussion should be carried over to the Lost case in particular. It was pretty clear from the discussion as well as notes leading up to the discussion that Lost was the series at issue here. Let's not use TobyRush's exception clause(s) above to jump back to the Lost discussion and start over. The ties between the two are obvious enough that starting over is not necessary. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding exceptions: I actually agree with you, Jay32183, and I didn't actually say anything about "I want to do it differently" vs. "common sense." If the editors of an individual TV show propose an exception to this guideline, there would need to be common-sense justification for that exception, and that should be sussed out in the good-faith discussion of the proposal. WP:D itself is a guideline (not a policy), and my remarks above about exceptions were only meant to point out that TV:NC falls in the same category. In other words, if the Star Trek folks feel that they have a rationale for not following TV:NC, a consensus-building discussion should take place there. And since this is Wikipedia, we're all invited. :)
Regarding the "it would be nice" section: How about "Some editors think it would be nice to have a solution which:"? As I mentioned, these are the criteria which are not met by Cburnett's proposal. I, for one, am okay with that, especially if it means achieving consensus. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
My point about the "it would be nice" parts was that we don't need to go out of our way to meet those. If a decent proposal happened to, then great. But let's not go overboard. Jay32183 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Although there is still vocal dissent from a few editors, I think that there is a broad consensus for Cburnett's suggestion. I think we're ready to put it on the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with this being a recommendation for -all- episode articles. I think this is fine for something like Lost where a WikiProject is involved, but it's simply overkill for most cases. -- Netoholic @ 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur. For cases where few or none of the episodes would need dabbing (Category:Friends episodes), let's not make people feel they have no choice but create redirects - because that's what will happen. How about simply "Editors are free to create redirects with..."? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, no need to force it. But allowing it makes it easier for some editors. Jay32183 21:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
How about "Editors are encouraged to create redirects with..."? That way we're not suggesting it's mandatory, but we show that it is approved. After all, redirects are cheap. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I can agree with that. That way editor's that need it, get it, and editors who don't, aren't forced to do any extra work. Jay32183 21:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Josiah, thank you very much for your efforts here. However, I'm a bit confused as to what you mean when you say, "put it on the page." If you mean your summary that Toby listed above, I am fully in support. However, if you mean Cburnett's suggestion, I am not. Could you please clarify, so that we can wordsmith the parts that are causing confusion? Or if we'd like an example of proposed wording, my suggestion is that in the "Episodes" section, we expand the paragraph to say, "Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g. Bart the Genius, but The Sting (Futurama). Certain shows such as Star Trek and Lost may use different formats. When in doubt, it is best to make new episode articles consistent with the practice that is already in existence for that program." --Elonka 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm very much against this wording. It implies there is something special about Star Trek and Lost. The only evidence presented that they are special is that the editors don't like the guideline, which is not a common sense exception. If there were actually something special that made the naming covention not work properly, then an exception would make sense. Jay32183 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, I considered that to be an acceptable fallback position in case there was not sufficient consensus for a more general guideline. My reading of the discussion is that there is a broad consensus for Cburnett's suggestion, with only a few dissenters (notably, yourself and Matthew Fenton). There comes a time in any policy-building process when one must fish or cut bait; I judged that time to have come. I may have been too hasty, but I still think that there is quite broad support for Cburnett's compromise, as currently worded on the guideline page. It is not always possible to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties; I think that this one is as close as we're going to get. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
A guideline that ends with "...but, if any single editor feels their case is different, they can feel free to shift back into free-for-all mode and ignore this guideline" is not a guideline. That's anarchy. Anarchy was clearly not the consensus here. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The core of this whole dispute is to not have actual articles with disambig titles when disambig is not needed. Redirects are fine, but the article itself should only disambig when necessary. As it stands now Lost nor Star Trek have a rational reason to be exempt from this. We will not put in an exemption into this guideline for Lost or Star Trek at the very least. Elonka, you disagree with this, and it seems you will to your dying breath, but get over it. -- Ned Scott 21:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If it would help us to reach a more complete consensus, we could add a sentence like TobyRush suggested above. Another alternative could be:

Some WikiProjects have previously established guidelines that encourage consistent use of disambiguating phrases. This guideline neither supercedes nor is superceded by these WikiProject guidelines.

How's that, Elonka? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is actually what has gotten me so fusterated about this situation. The idea that a WikiProject with weak rational can make contradicting guidelines is a very bad idea. Again, I point out that this was never a consensus of WikiProject Lost or the mediation case about Lost episodes, but even if it was there's still not a valid reason for exception. -- Ned Scott 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Josiah, I agree that sometimes consensus cannot get 100% approval, but I think it's important to ensure that we're at least trying for it. In other words, I don't think it's appropriate to start a thread and say, "We have consensus," and then two hours later make major guideline changes. We're obviously still discussing this issue, plus we also need to give other "infrequent" editors time to weigh in, rather than just listening to the voices of those who are posting multiple times per day. I would also point out that the above poll should not be given any "consensus" weight, since its wording was obviously being changed multiple times throughout the course of the poll.
What I would recommend, since this is obviously such a controversial issue, is that we agree on potential new wording for the guideline, and then present it as such, here on the talk page, with a new section entitled "Guideline addition/change". This is how I've seen other such major changes debated in other parts of Wikipedia. Then we let that discussion run for a week, and make sure everyone's had a chance to read it and think about it, and/or suggest wording changes. If we're all in agreement at the end of the week, then we put it into the guideline. If not, we can follow one of the other suggestions in Wikipedia:Consensus or WP:DR.
Getting back to the suggested sentence, I would change it a bit so it doesn't just look like a grandfather clause. How about: "Some WikiProjects may have separate guidelines for a different style of episode title, such as the consistent use of disambiguating phrases even when not absolutely required. This guideline neither supercedes nor is superceded by these WikiProject guidelines, and changes to the titles of those WikiProject's episodes should be debated within those respective communities." --Elonka 22:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Agian, you're creating a special case where no special case exists, you just aren't naming your special cases. In order for a common sense exception to occur there has to be a common sense distinction. In terms of the existing policy being applied to the title of any individual episode article, all individual episode articles are identical. Common sense dictates that identical situations be treated the same. Jay32183 22:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) At the very least, a clause would be needed saying that such decisions need to be made outside of the particular project. Otherwise, you're encouraging the formation of splinter factions and mini-Wikipedias. You end up with ridiculous things like every article related to the band Heart has a heart character in the article name because a bunch of overzealous Heart fans had a vote one day. As much as I hate the "professional" word being thrown around here, the "professional" look of Wikipedia is dependant on the overall Wikipedia following given guidelines which don't include project-specific exceptions like what exists here. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, Wknight... I think those decisions should be made within the project in question. There are no closed clubs on Wikipedia; if you found that the Heart fans were pulling this kind of stunt, you could make yourself part of the discussion toward revising the Heart guidelines to be match the standard practice. (And call me... I'll support you!)
That said, though, I don't really see any reason to talk about any exceptions on TV:NC; the universal rule is that justifiable exceptions to guidelines are always okay. It seems to me that there needs to be a consensus-seeking discussion over at the Lost and Star Trek WikiProjects; if those discussions reach consensus that the exceptions are justified, then it can be posted on their respective NC pages. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
But I don't have any Heart articles on my watchlist. Do you? For all we know, that discussion is already underway and only Heart fans know about it! —Wknight94 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any on my watchlist either. But it seems to me that Wikipedia (pretty successfully, I might add) operates on the principle that there are more editors striving to maintain the standards than those who would wish otherwise. So given the number of people who do have Heart articles on their watchlist, at least one of them should find that stunt a bad idea and call attention to it.
And, by the way, I just checked and they're behaving over there. :) --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 23:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh. And yes, Toby brings up a good point about the lack of closed discussions. In my experience, Wikipedia is pretty good at self-regulating itself. For example, earlier this year there were concerns that decisions were being made at the "Polish Wikipedian notice board" (especially about naming conventions) that seemed to go against other Wikipedia guidelines such as Use English. That particular group had organized themselves into a consistent voting block, and were working their way through dozens of different articles around Wikipedia, moving them to non-English names. This became a dispute for awhile, until it was pointed out that anyone could participate in the discussions on that board, not just the Polish members of Wikipedia. So other editors from different points of view added the noticeboard to their watchlists, and the "voting block" nature of the group got evened out. In terms of this discussion about television episode naming conventions, though my own initial interest in this discussion was via the Lost articles, at this point, I'm honestly trying to come up with guidelines that can be helpful all over Wikipedia. As Wikipedia grows (and we're at around the 1.465 million article mark, last I checked, and doubling every six months), there are going to be thousands of television-related articles over the place. Many of them can and should use similar formats, yes, but every so often there are going to be reasons for good faith exceptions, and this Guideline should be written to allow for that. Ultimately, I keep in mind that the vast majority of editors working on their separate sections of Wikipedia, are good faith individuals who are here to improve Wikipedia, not to damage it. Wikipedia will grow more smoothly if guidelines are used for their intention, which is to give guidance, rather than to rigidly enforce rules which may not make sense in all situations. And lastly, yes, if any subgroup of editors started insisting on putting little hearts in article titles, give me a call, too, as I agree that that would be a Bad Thing, and I'd happily participate in that discussion to throw in my $0.02.  :) --Elonka 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
All guidelines are like that by default, and there is no need to note that reasonable exception can be made to anything. That being said, a good deal of this debate was done in a Lost-specific discussion, and not a lot has changed. If you want us to change talk pages, then ok, but it won't really change anything. And there's no such thing as a "good faith exceptions", only reasonable exceptions. Exceptions need to have reasons and shouldn't be just assumed. I made that mistake originally by assuming that there had to be a good reason behind the Star Trek example, which was why I was originally in support of your position. Then I find out that it was added for no reason at all. Unless we can put such an example in a reasonable context then it shouldn't be included. As far as Lost goes, there has yet to be a reasonable argument to support "always disambig", but there has been reasonable argument to follow existing naming conventions.
This isn't a power move or anything like that, it's just rational guideline making. The reason we make guidelines is so we don't have to have the same discussion on every talk page and come to conclusions over and over again. Granted, that should happen to some degree, in that nothing is set in stone, but the point being is that we can refer to a rational consensus instead of having to come to one every time the issue is brought up. If we are going to make exceptions without reasonable arguments then the guideline loses it's value and effect. It doesn't matter if we come to this conclusion here or on a Lost talk page, we'll be having the same discussion because no new or reasonable arguments have been brought up. Why have this same debate for 20 different WikiProjects when nothing has changed?
That being said, I don't mind that we keep the discussion open for longer for infrequent editors. The people who've already commented, including myself, are just repeating themselves now. -- Ned Scott 00:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Am i the only one who sees a major contradiction in how it is the same people who want the suffix because it is creates consistency advocating for certain TV series to be exceptions, which reduces consistency over all the TV series? What's the point of doing something that's mostly redundant just to make one tiny group of articles more consistent, but wikipedia in general less?

And since when did small individual wikiprojects have power to make decisions that override wikipedia-wide guildlines? Especially when wikiprojects can be so small that it's basically one or two people making decisions, and then claiming "the project reached a consensus". --`/aksha 01:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If two people are working together on something non-controversial, then yes, they should be able to be bold and move forward with whatever that they're working on, without worrying about having to check consensus for each grammar change. If something is controversial though, then I think we should trust that other editors are going to be popping in to that WikiProject eventually. But I still firmly believe that when you've got a large enough group of editors who are very familiar with a particular type of subject matter, such as in a WikiProject, that it usually makes sense to trust their good faith in formatting articles in a way that they believe makes the most sense for their particular case. This doesn't mean going wild and putting the "External links" section at the top of the article, but it does mean making good faith exceptions to certain guidelines, such as in this "suffixes" issue. As I've pointed out before, I see no damage that's been caused to Wikipedia by the consistent system at Category:Star Trek episodes. The only concern seems to be, "That's not how we usually do it," which isn't a good enough reason to go in and disrupt those categories. See Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Elonka 18:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
To assume good faith is one thing, but we can do more than assume. In these situations we can actually look for the conversations and / or other things to show where the rational came from. There are many situations where something is added, not because of consensus, but because it was just there and no one really thought much of it. A good example of that would be the Star Trek example. No one actually discussed it, but it found it's way in there and it could be easy to assume there was a "consensus" behind it.
Also, WikiProjects, by no means whatsoever, have any ownership or authority by simply being a WikiProject. WikiProjects are just centralized points of collaboration, not a governing body.
Again, making page moves is not a disruption. A category of Star Trek articles not having any activity does not make it "stable", and to make page moves there doesn't hurt anyone or disrupt anything. Page move wars, which both you and I have been guilty of, are harmful, but that's why we're having this discussion, so we'll only have to move things once. -- Ned Scott 19:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikiprojects don't have special authority. Even when there is a large group of people who all agree, it doesn't put them above wikipedia-wide guildlines (which an even larger group of people should have agreed to.) And that's assuming there is indeed a large group of people, who all agree. Which is all too often not the case. A lack of complaints from the rest of the project doesn't mean agreement. It could just mean the rest of the project didn't notice, didn't care, or did their part of AGF and assumed the person making the changes was following guildlines.
There is no such thing as a "good faith exception" WP:AGF simply means any prelimarily assumptions are to be made in good faith. It doesn't mean to stubbornly stick to assumptions when facts become avaliable. When an exception to a rule is made, we AGF - that is, we assume there is a valid reason for the exception. However, if upon request, the people making the exception are unable to provide a valid reason, then sticking to the assumption becomes a case of stupidity. So yes, of course we start off assuming good faith, but then if the facts prove us wrong, we stop believing those prelimary assumptions.
You seem to like consistency a lot. Has it not occured to you that unless Star Trek episodes is the only thing someone reads on wikipedia, this kind of exceptions to general naming schemes will actually reduce consistency for all other readers? --`/aksha 06:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me you have misunderstood the concept of WP:POINT; an example of such is not, per your example, moving all the Star Trek episodes per the proper naming convention guidelines, but moving all the Star Trek episodes from [EpisodeName] (Star Trek episode) to [EpisodeName] (Star Trek gobbledy-goo) to "illustrate the point" that consistent article disambigs are not necessarily helpful. Shannernanner 12:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming is not the most important issue

I hope that everyone at least can agree that worrying about an episode article name should be the last thing we think about. It is first important to determine if individual articles are even the best way to go. A "natural" progress for inclusion of episode information should be:

  1. Basic list and very short summary in main series article
  2. Split basic list into a separate "List of SeriesName episodes", longer summaries
  3. Split "List of" into "SeriesName (season #)" articles, with longer summaries and production information
  4. Split individual, noteworthy, episodes out of season articles
  5. Move episodes into individual articles (when each episode attains "noteworthiness" just by virtue of being part of such a popular series)

Too many bad situations are caused by people jumping right to #5. -- Netoholic @ 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is correct, Netaholic, and indeed it's the order of business suggested at WP:EPISODE. And perhaps that guideline should be enforced more strictly than it is. However, since people are creating individual episode articles, it would be nice if those articles were named in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. That's what we're working on here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Over all, it's not the most important issue, but this is WP:TV-NAME.. -- Ned Scott 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose there's a place to propose merges that can result in binding decisions (like the way AfD produces a final binding decision on whether to delete or not)? --`/aksha 01:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

On this episode article issue, I mostly agree with Netoholic. When we start documenting a particular series, we shouldn't immediately create individual episode articles, but instead should first start with a basic overview page, which perhaps contains a brief summarized list of episodes. Then as this grows, the list can be split off to a "List of episodes" page. Then if the series is shown to be definitely notable, that list can start hubbing out to individual episodes, starting with the most notable ones. Where I think I disagree though, is that only the most notable episodes should have individual pages, and that others should be kept strictly in summary form. I think that if a series is already at the point of creating individual episode pages, it becomes very difficult to decide which episodes are "page-worthy" and which aren't, so if someone really wants to go to the trouble of creating a page on every episode at that point, it's not going to hurt anything. But the series should definitely start at the "one-page-fits-all" point, rather than immediately jumping to a later step. --Elonka 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It's more like #4 above is a transitional step (usually) to #5. I think there are a few situations a series would have only a few separate episode articles (M*A*S*H is a good example, 11 seasons, and only a handful of episodes are of note). That is not the most common case, though, and I think most series should stop at #2 or #3. -- Netoholic @ 09:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


How to proceed

Since the old poll got so tangled, I recommend we close it, and discuss our next step, such as working on a potential new paragraph for the Guideline, by finding wording that everyone agrees with. If we have obvious consensus, it can go into the guideline. If we don't have consensus, then we work on changing the wording until we do. For example, in other guidelines where there was controversy, the way I've seen it handled, is that in that particular section of the guideline, it simply says, "Controversy exists about whether or not action A or action B is better."

I especially liked TobyRush's summary up above, which did a good job of reflecting the opinions here, so I started with that and put it into more of a paragraph form. Here's my suggestion, but feel free to suggest different wording:

Potential new guideline wording

There is some controversy about the exact way to title episode articles, but the general consensus is that in most cases, articles about individual episodes should use the title of the episode itself, unless that title is already in use, in which case the episode article should include (<seriesname> episode) as a disambiguating suffix.

In some cases, certain series may use slightly different systems, such as to use a disambiguating suffix of simply (<seriesname>) or even to include a consistent suffix on all episodes of a particular series, regardless of whether or not they are strictly required by disambiguation rules. Advantages to this system are that linked lists of episodes use a consistent titling scheme, and it becomes easier to link between episodes if many of them (or even the majority) already had suffixes. Other advantages are that it is convenient to include series context with an article's title, categories look more consistent, and specific subject areas are easier to see in editor watchlists. Disadvantages are that there may be some confusion if a suffix which normally implies disambiguation, is used on an article that did not need disambiguating; and the additional unneeded suffix results in a longer article title than necessary. So, these "exception" types of methods remain controversial, and are generally discouraged (see the talk page for more information).

How's that? Does this address everyone's concerns? --Elonka 23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a need to change the current guideline at all, actually. When someone comes up with an exception that is necessary for a good reason (unlike the Lost exception proposal), then add it. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
No. At the risk of sounding uncivil. no no no no a thousand times NO. You are saying the EXACT SAME THING over and over, and we keep telling you no. -- Ned Scott 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph looks fine. The rest just seems to be an excuse to let people who don't prefer the chosen method to make exceptions, which makes the whole thing a waste of time. In some cases, certain series.. no no no! There is absolutely NO logical reason why one series should use a different format to another series, and why any TV series should use a different format to Wikipedia in general. The only reasons seem to be "it is already like that" and "the WikiProject <TV series> editors like it that way". The advantages and disadvantages listed are not specific to any one show; and as such, different shows shouldn't stray from them. it becomes easier to link between episodes .. no, not if you edit articles about different shows and every show has a different format. specific subject areas are easier to see in editor watchlists - this is what "shared watchlists" (such as this) are for. -- Chuq 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Exceptions are not just discouraged, they are against guildline. If there is a very good reason, then an exception may be okay. But there isn't. Why do we even need a guildline change? Our current problem looks more like it's about whether or not to allow arbitrary exceptions.
It's convient to include series context with an article's title? No...it really isn't. Shortest title means less typeing for the person naming the title, for people wanting to reach it from url edit or the go box, and for people trying to link to the article. Titles are titles, that's it.
So no, i don't think it really addresses anyone's concerns except maybe your own. And no, don't like it, for those reasons and all the ones already pointed out. --`/aksha 01:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I may have been premature in my bold inclusion of Cburnett's suggestion into the guideline. However, is there anyone besides Elonka who has a problem with it? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really. Not sure it's necessary but it's also not objectionable IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here's an idea that might interest some people. I may be wrong but can't you actually add a category to a redirect? Then the redirect appears in the category listing. If you then remove the category from the article itself, all you would see is the redirect in the category listing, not the article itself. I think I read somewhere where this same issue had come up and this method was proposed as a solution. I have no idea where that was though... Thoughts? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
won't work. sorry to put it so bluntly. The whole point of a category is so someone reading an article, when reaching the bottom, can get to the category with lots of other similar aricles. If you remove the category from the article itself, it defeats the purpose since readers will never get to it. Redirects can be added to categories, but someone clicking on a redirect will never notice the category because they...get redirected. For it to work, we'd have to add all the articles into a category that redirects to the category with the redirects (not sure if category redirecting is even possible), and someone clicking on a redirect would then be redirected to the article. Way too messy if you ask me. --`/aksha 02:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Was a longshot. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression all Cburnett suggested was that redirects also be created so that whichever naming convention was used for articles, both would "work". This is fine, and will work quite happily with:
Articles about individual episodes should use the title of the episode itself, unless that title is already in use, in which case the episode article should include (<seriesname> episode) as a disambiguating suffix.
-- Chuq 04:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm still very much against (NameofSeries episode) when the word episode isn't actually necessary. If we strictly followed the dab guidelines as already written the word episode should only be added if not adding episode creates an ambiguous article title, such as when an episode is named after a character or setting that also has an article. I very much agree with that because it creates the simplest, shortest disambiguation. Jay32183 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, lets look at it from another angle. Assuming no knowledge about an article, what would a title with "(Lost)", "(Medium)", "(24)", "(House)" or "(Oz)" indicate? Not much. So whats wrong with "(episode)"? That tells you exactly what it is. It also aligns with standard naming conventions - you will find we have articles about people ending in "(politician)" or "(musician)" rather than "(Australia)" or "(Canada)". -- Chuq 06:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the poll that took place the last week or so is essentially saying that the guideline is fine the way it is. Frankly, I'm not sure what the purpose of this new section is. Enough with the false compromises and red herrings. We're all repeating ourselves yet again. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like the poll is showing a preference for (<seriesname> episode) which is different to what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) says. Why do you think it says the guideline is fine the way it is? -- Chuq 06:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think he's talking about the poll showing a preference for simply not using unneeded disambiguation, so the current guildline of using disambiguation only when needed is fine. Meaning there's no need to change it or debate about what form of disambiguation to use.
Although i do agree the "episode" is redundant for episode articles that do need the disambiguation. It simply adds on another layer of disambiguation. "Assuming no knowledge about an article, what would a title with "(Lost)", "(Medium)", "(24)", "(House)" or "(Oz)" indicate? Not much. So whats wrong with "(episode)"? That tells you exactly what it is." But the title of an article isn't supposed to serve the function of telling you what the article is. It's supposed to be a name, that's all. If titles were supposed to tell people what the article was about, we may as well be doing things like adding "(Chemical Element)" after articles like Astatine to tell non-chemists exactly what the article is. --`/aksha 08:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the "disambiguate only when necessary" part of it. It's the second part where the poll results differ from what the page currently says. Astatine doesn't require disambiguation, which is fine, but articles like Mercury (element) do have it. My point was that "Lost", "24", "House" and so on have much more common meanings than the TV shows, thus they don't do much to clarify the meaning/content of the article, which is the point of disambiguation. -- Chuq 08:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The point of the tag is to differentiate the article from other existing articles of the same name. It's not meant to add anything to the article. It's not a mini-summary of the article and it's not a part of the content. It should be the bare minimum required to distinguish any two existing articles of the same title. That's why we have Mercury (mythology) and not Mercury (Roman mythology) or Mercury (Roman god). Just because Lost, 24 and House have common meanings doesn't mean we have to address that in the article's title. Further, the most likely time the tag is important to a user would be in a dab page, where it's supposed to have a clarifying description such as "EpisodeName (Lost), an episode of the television series Lost". That description sounds more like what you're talking about.
If we decide that the tags are meant to be descriptive (they're not), then we have to determine how descriptive -- is (Lost episode) enough? There was another TV show called Lost, after all. Should it be EpisodeName (Lost (2004 TV series) episode)? We should just stick with what works for the rest of Wikipedia: use the simplest disambiguation possible and avoid the issue entirely. -Anþony 11:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW yes, I was refuting the original post in this section asking for verbiage about exceptions to the guideline (sorry for the confusion). No such exception language is necessary. As far as how to disambiguate when it is necessary, I abstain on that part. That doesn't seem particularly standard anywhere. In the baseball section, some bios are dabbed with (baseball player), some just with (baseball), some with (pitcher), etc. I almost never bother messing with those because I don't find it particularly important. I tend to agree with using a little as possible to actually disambiguate - that's the final goal of suffix tags - but I'm not a zealot either way. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree — I don't really care that much whether the disambiguation tag says "episode" or not, although I tend to go with the shorter one. The important thing is that we don't encourage disambiguation tags when they're not necessary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

About guidelines and consensus

Per Wikipedia:Guideline: "People are sometimes tempted to call a vote on a guideline, but this is a bad idea because it polarizes the issue (see Voting is evil for details). Instead, a guideline is made by listening to objections and resolving them." As regards this naming conventions guideline, it is clear that there are objections, so the guideline should reflect that there is controversy. A few people repeatedly saying that there isn't controversy, and making personal attacks or otherwise harassing anyone raising good faith objections, is not "listening to objections and resolving them." I have offered a compromise wording, which is to state a primary method of titling episodes, while admitting that exceptions (and controversy) exist. I think that's pretty fair. If someone wants to suggest different wording though, I'm listening. --Elonka 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This guideline clearly is controversial per the extreme objections to it and per Elonka’s above comments. A few people popping up after there friends reply saying “I AGREE”, “Me two!!”, “Yuperz! Me agrees as well.”, “Wow” I couldn’t agree more”, “Agree, agree, agree!” so does not cancel out the significant objections of others. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I see no such mindless agreements here, Matthew. The participants in this conversation have expressed reasons and support for their positions, and I have yet to see a fully reasoned objection to the current wording. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll use the term false compromise again. The idea that 24 people need to meet 7 people halfway is very much false. We've listened (with surprising patience at multiple sites) to the objections and the resolution as I understand it is "leave it as it is". You can throw around red herrings about personal attacks and harassment all day if you want - the resolution still seems crystal clear to me. (Again, this is in regards to the exception verbiage which I believe is your chief issue). —Wknight94 (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I also dispute the notion that those supporting the current wording are treating this as a "vote" or ignoring the concerns of the dissenters. There is a broad agreement, with a few vocal opponents. Wknight94 and others have given clear reasons about why it is not a good idea to include mention of "exceptions" in the guideline. If the objections were more widespread, I could support such a wording, but as it is there are only a few editors objecting, and they have not (in my view) sufficiently justified their arguments. WikiProject precedent is not a sufficient reason to formalize an exception to core Wikipedia guidelines. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, over and over again, any time a naming guideline for a particular area violates the basic naming conventions for Wikipedia, in particular WP:NC, WP:NC(CN) and WP:D, controversy and conflict errupt. The only way to have a naming convention specific to some area not conflict with the basic naming principles is to have it apply only when a known ambiguity issue exists. The purpose of these area-specific conventions should be to specify what to do in a particular naming area when and only when there is an ambiguity situation to resolve, so that ambiguities are resolved in a consistent fashion. But please do not make the mistake of then using these ambiguity-resolving naming conventions on articles that don't even have an ambiguity issue to resolve; that's blatant and pointless violation of the general naming guidelines, and leads to conflict and controversy. Why advocate for that? --Serge 21:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Treat each article independently

Every article in Wikipedia, including every article about a TV episode, should be named in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, including WP:NC, WP:NC(CN), WP:D, etc. More specific naming guidelines should only apply in those cases where a known ambiguity issue exists. That is, if the name of the episode is not used in Wikipedia for any other article, that should be the name of the article about that episode, period. If there is an ambiguity issue, then it's appropriate to look for guidelines here and/or at an appropriate Wikiproject, but, even then, those are only guidelines. In the end, each article should be treated independently. Trying to impose a naming convention that inherently violates fundamental general Wikipedia naming conventions only creates conflict, and understandably so. — Serge 16:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"More specific naming guidelines should only apply in those cases where a known ambiguity issue exists." Where specifically is that said on one of the pages you linked to? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's not stated anywhere, and, so, we have endless bickering and consternation. It should say that somewhere so that we would not have all this conflict. --Serge 18:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You are correct that "trying to impose a naming convention that inherently violates fundamental general Wikipedia naming conventions only creates conflict." That's why the current wording of the guideline is an attempt to make certain that television episodes follow the general Wikipedia naming conventions, instead of being an exception to them. It's an effort to avoid future conflict. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Understood, and I support the current wording of the guideline for TV episodes for this reason. --Serge 19:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Move survey in progress: Hole in One

There is a TV episode article entitled Hole in One. There is a requested move survey to move it to Hole in One (TV episode) at Talk:Hole in One. --Serge 22:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Walking Limping Crawling up Mount Consensus

It seems to me that we have a tentative consensus about the general guideline, and there are now two items upon which there is still some disagreement:

  1. Whether or not to acknowledge here the possibility of exceptions to this guideline
  2. Whether to use "(SeriesName)" or "(SeriesName episode)" when disambiguation is deemed necessary

Regarding the first item: Since WP:D states that "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception," we should recognize that there may be a situation where an exception to this guideline is appropriate. Rather than use Lost or Star Trek, for which there is guideline-related disagreement, allow me to suggest a hypothetical television show, Wikipedians. This show, described by its fans as "a show about userboxes," has an very interesting distinction: its episodes are named in such a way that the episode article titles require pre-emptive disambiguation. In fact, naming an episode article without a disambiguating phrase would cause the internet to collapse. So it exists as a common-sense exception to the guidelines here at TV:NC.

(Now, before you argue that there is no such show, remember that WP:D notes that guidelines can have exceptions, and so this serves as the hypothetical common-sense exception that may someday be found, and that we should accept and be prepared for.)

So, assuming the existence of this hypothetical series, do we make any mention of exceptions here, on the guideline page? If we do not, we are trusting that future editors will know about WP:D's allowance of common-sense exceptions. If we do mention the exceptions on the guideline page, we risk encouraging editors to find reasons to make needless exceptions to the guideline. Elonka's argument, as I understand it, is that we should make this decision based on the possibility of series that have justifiable reasons to exempt themselves from the guideline. I think that's a extremely valid argument that is in keeping with Wikipedia:Guideline. (Elonka, I hope I'm not misrepresenting you here!) That said, I am leaning toward not including the exception verbiage here, but I can certainly see the merit of doing it both ways.

Lost and Star Trek are both great shows (well, I actually haven't seen Lost yet, so keep the spoilers away, please), but they're not helping us achieve consensus here. It seems to me that we should work toward consensus on a general guideline, and then take that guideline to individual shows and debate there whether or not the shows qualify as common sense exceptions. It's hard to focus on the merits of a general guideline when controversial exceptions keep getting thrown in, and I think it will help those individual discussions if we can create a general guideline and achieve broad consensus on it.

Regarding the second item: One of the reasons we chose against pre-emptive disambiguation was that the title of the article need not establish context (that's the job of the first line of the article itself). Therefore, the disambiguating phrase need only serve to identify the article among the other articles on the disambiguation page. If someone is looking for the article about Futurama article "The Sting," they will quickly determine that The Sting (Futurama) is what they're looking for, and not The Sting (1973 film). However, as Josiah pointed out above, Dalek (Doctor Who) would need to be expanded to Dalek (Doctor Who episode) to distinguish it from Dalek (Doctor Who race). --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 23:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Toby. We could use your and Josiah's logic and reason over at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (settlements). --Serge 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


The first item, I have no objection to having an example, as long as that example has reasonable rational and context. To make an exception without this would create a loop hole and confusion. Having reasonable exceptions is something that is apart of all guidelines, and a lack of example in no way is an attempt to dispute that. If we have a reasonable example that is not misleading, then by all means include it. (this would not include the above example)
The second item, as I noted when I "voted" that I had no strong preference. Others have also listed their names under both, which I take it is also an indication of no strong preference? The poll itself seems pretty split there. The second item sounds like a no consensus issue. -- Ned Scott 23:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Ned: my discussion of a hypothetical series was merely for the benefit of our discussion here; I don't see any benefit of actually including it as part of the guideline. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 04:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Including the suggested language that exceptions are possible implies that there currently exists some series which qualifies as such an exception. Barring Wikipedians being picked up for the 2007 season, there are no series I'm aware of that merit a common-sense exception (that includes Star Trek). In the rare and hypothetical event that a show doesn't fit into the guidelines and seems like it should be an exception, I believe that the guideline should be updated to address the particularities of the series and obviate the need for an exception.
As for the Dalek article, that falls under the provisions of WP:D#Primary_topic. Clearly, Dalek (Doctor Who episode) needs the "episode" tag to differentiate it from Dalek, but only because anything less would be ambiguous. Category:Ninth_Doctor_episodes is a perfect example of the position I'm advocating, making proper use of all three possibilities: Dalek (Doctor Who episode) in the aforementioned case, (Doctor Who) when there are other articles unrelated to Doctor Who, and a plain title in general. -Anþony 23:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The point of not listing an example right now is that none exist. Stating that when exceptions need to be made they can be made is unnecessary as that is general policy. Until a situation exists that an exception needs to be made, there need not be an explanation for exception. If an exception actually arises then it can be listed with the reason for its exception being noted as well. Jay32183 00:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Toby is correct that the general notion of "reasonable exceptions" applies whether we make it explicit or not. However, making it explicit has the disadvantage of inviting such exceptions, whether they are reasonable or not. Perhaps if we understood the reasoning, if any, behind the established exception at Star Trek (and proposed exception at Lost), we would be better able to understand the argument for mentioning that exception in this guideline. As it is, the only reason I can see for the exception is "we've done it this way for a long time, and it hasn't hurt anyone." Precedent has a value, but a bad precedent can be overturned if better reasons present themselves. We've given the reasons why we feel the Star Trek example is a bad precedent; I have yet to hear the argument for why it might be a good precedent. I'd like to. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
My bet is that, if an exception comes up, it will apply to more than one case. It will become part of the guideline, not an exception. It's evolution which, by definition, includes changes and exceptions. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Toby, I completely agree with what you said, thank you for summarizing.
May I also humbly suggest that we start this discussion from scratch? This page is getting awfully long, which is discouraging participation, plus the personal attacks make it difficult to assume good faith. Also, I would very much like to see the poll closed, since it has been repeatedly invalidated by the multiple changes to its structure (and no, I'm not just saying that because I'm in the "minority," I would feel the same way even if in the majority). Also, before rushing to start a new poll, I would like to see us discuss suggested poll questions to make sure that we're in agreement on what is being polled, so that we don't repeat the mistake of rewriting a new poll while it's in-process. So, I recommend that we archive the entire discussion, including the poll, and make a fresh start? Can we at least get consensus on that much?  :) --Elonka 07:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
This is absurd. Making a new poll would be one thing (unnecessary, really, since it's just one form of data collection), but we are not starting discussion over from scratch. And please, referring to each other by name is NOT a personal attack. The poll's results are very still very much valid, and I'll personally volunteer to go to everyone's talk page to confirm their position and intended meaning. You're just avoiding the issues being brought up and keep trying to sneak in an exception. This is a case where we have consensus and a few editors are dragging their feet about this. So, no, we're not starting over, if anything we should be wrapping up this discussion and start requesting moves for the Lost articles. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Internet debates and Wikipedia's especially seem to be a question of endurance and who tires of arguing first. We should accept that we're never going to convince everyone for a true consensus, though there is a clear supermajority in favor of disambiguating only when necessary. -Anþony 11:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, you can archive the discussion part - the vast parts of repetition anyway - but the poll results stay right up on the top. If I recall correctly, Elonka, you were one of the people messing with the structure of the poll while it was going on, so it seems disingenuous for you to call it invalid. Everyone knew what was being discussed - we're not stupid. If you want to start some new poll regarding Lost specifically, it seems only fair for you to invite each one of the people that voted in this poll. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the advantage in restarting the discussion or having a new poll. If anyone feels that votes may have been recorded in error, due to the changing of the poll questions, Ned's kind volunteering should take care of that. Discussions have been made, opinions have been stated, and all but two active participants have agreed on a solution. I don't think that going through the whole process all over again will change anything. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps if we understood the reasoning, if any, behind the established exception at Star Trek (and proposed exception at Lost), we would be better able to understand the argument for mentioning that exception in this guideline. - I don't think there is any reasoning. Star Trek's reason seems to be "it is already like that" and Lost's seems to be "Star Trek can do it, so why can't we". If you mention and allow exceptions, then anyone will just make an exception whenever they feel like it, which is the entire point of this discussion to decide on a single convention and stick by it. -- Chuq 12:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What's easier to find?

Is it easier to find a page with "episode" in its title, based on wikipedia's search? Is putting the word "episode" in the first sentence equivalent? What if you search for "csi episode"? Do we care about how the search results may change? - Peregrinefisher 07:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that by using redirects we can get the exact same results. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Lost episode move requests?

Seeing as though this discussion is petering out and certainly has gone nowhere as far as explaining a Lost-specific exception to the guideline, I don't personally see a problem with bringing the Lost episode articles at question to WP:RM now. Any strong objections? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a good idea to wait, just a little. I can see this thing finishing up pretty soon now. --`/aksha 11:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, give it a few days, just to reduce tension. >Radiant< 12:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Will do. I don't see the two main holdouts agreeing to anything final anytime soon but I'll hold off as a courtesy. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for exceptions

Let's try to see if the reasons that have been given as justifications for WikiProject exceptions hold water. For the sake of presenting the arguments fairly, I will use Elonka's words, not my own. I see three classes of argument:

  • Precedent: for example, the Star Trek episodes have been using a slightly different format for a long time, without a problem.
  • Consistency: linked lists of episodes use a consistent titling scheme, and it becomes easier to link between episodes if many of them (or even the majority) already had suffixes... and categories look more consistent.
  • Context: it is convenient to include series context with an article's title... and specific subject areas are easier to see in editor watchlists.

Assuming these three classes are the primary reasons given, let's examine them one at a time.

  • Precedent: for example, the Star Trek episodes have been using a slightly different format for a long time, without a problem.
    • Precedents are useful, but only if they have good reasons behind them. Furthermore, only decisions by Jimbo, the ArbCom and the Wikimedia Foundation Board are binding — beyond that, there are no binding decisions. If a consensus among Wikipedians is contrary to the decision of a WikiProject, the larger consensus should be followed. (It goes without saying that all WikiProject members are welcome in the larger decision-making process, and indeed the members of the Star Trek WikiProject have been invited to join this discussion.) Given this, the precedent has value only insofar as its reasoning can be explained. Which leads us to the remaining two arguments:
  • Consistency: linked lists of episodes use a consistent titling scheme, and it becomes easier to link between episodes if many of them (or even the majority) already had suffixes... and categories look more consistent.
    • This is an aesthetic judgment, and one that is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Disambiguation says, "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page." This would indicate that it is incorrect to name an article, for example, A Fistful of Datas (TNG episode) when A Fistful of Datas is perfectly clear and unambiguous.
    • Furthermore, the "ease of linking" concern is adequately addressed by the recommendation to create redirects with the appropriate suffixes.
  • Context: it is convenient to include series context with an article's title... and specific subject areas are easier to see in editor watchlists.
    • It is not the function of article naming to provide context. The article itself does that, ideally in its first line. Nor is it the function of article naming to categorize articles. The category system does that. As I argued above,
If I came upon a contextless link to, say, Adios Butler (a page I found by hitting "random article" a few times), I would have no idea what that was. But if I see a link to Adios Butler in a list of pacing horses on Harness racing, then I'll know that Adios Butler is a horse. My ignorance of the subject of horse racing is not a justification for renaming that article Adios Butler (horse).

From my point of view, the objections to these reasons are all much stronger than the reasons themselves. I would greatly appreciate any responses to these arguments, and any further reasons that I have missed. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a good summation of the argument. I'd add more but there doesn't seem to be anything else to say. Jay32183 21:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a succinct and articulately stated argument that would work as a much more general argument against the practice of "predisambiguation" (qualifying a title beyond the most common name used when no ambiguity issues are known) in any category of Wikipedia articles. Bravo! --Serge 21:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Another hole in the "easier to see in my watchlist" argument, which Chuq mentioned before, is that you can use the Related changes page as a pseudo-watchlist for a specific topic. For example, the Related changes for Category:Lost episodes would suffice for Elonka's needs, I think. You could even get more particular and create a userpage with only the articles you want to watch. -Anþony 21:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Under consistency, there is another important argument. I will copy some of my statements made previously here rather than restate them:
While it may provide a small benefit in remembering link names for those users who exclusively edit articles relating to Star Trek, for the rest of us, who are just as likely to link to a Star Trek episode as any other article, having a policy of preemptive disambiguation for Star Trek articles is just another dumb exception that has to be memorized and makes Wikipedia less consistent overall.
There is more to Wikipedia than just articles about Star Trek episodes. Sure, all the entries in the category page have the same parenthetical disambiguation, satisfying some bizarre fetish for things to line up on category pages, but it makes Wikipedia as a whole more inconsistent, hard to use, and unpredictable, not less. What Wikipedia needs is articles whose titles follow a consistent, project-wide system for disambiguation, not a warren of exceptions and loopholes.
And also, from the list of cons for allowing preemptive disambiguation:
  1. Con: Rather than just clarifying the general naming convention, directly contradicts it
  2. Con: Clutters the article namespace with unnecessary parenthetical disambiguations
  3. Con: Confuses users who wonder what other things have this title because it has a parenthetical disambiguation
  4. Con: Muddies the semantics of the article namespace with arbitrary additional attributes for a certain class of articles
  5. Con: Is hard to remember for people who don't frequently link to Star Trek or Lost episodes
  6. Con: Makes Wikipedia less consistent overall by increasing the complexity of the article naming conventions
Nohat 01:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I found this link at the village pump asking for outside opinions, so I'm not fully familiar with the background here, but if the debate is whether all articles on TV episodes should be titled "Episodename (seriesname episode)", or whether this should only be done when "Episodename" is already 'taken' by some other article - it seems clear to me that the formerlatter is preferred, both per Josiah's good summary of the arguments above, and per the Manual of Style. Redirects are a nice touch for compromise. >Radiant< 11:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


My response:

Josiah: Just because you disagree with someone else's point of view, does not mean that it's a good idea to refer to their opinions as "not holding water," or "unreasoned." I think it would be better to try and get away from this polarizing view of "There's only one right way to do things, and anyone who disagrees is 'wrong.'" My own view on the matter is that there are *multiple* right ways to do things. To try and break down my reasoning by your categories though:

  • Precedent: By the fact that hundreds of articles are created using the "suffix" method, it is clear that this is an intuitive and non-confusing method of titling episode articles. The only reason that has been given to change this method, is that it's "against the guidelines." That tells me not that we need to run through and change every one of these hundreds of articles, but that the guidelines need to be re-examined, to make sure that we're not just reacting in a kneejerk way to move articles to non-intuitive titles.
  • Consistency: This word is being used by both sides in this debate. For those who are deadset against suffixes, consistency is being cited as a reason to enforce disambiguation "policy." but I would point out that WP:DAB is not a policy. It is a guideline. There are very few policies on Wikipedia, but one of them is at WP:NC, which states, " Article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." In other words, in several cases, adding consistent suffixes to episodes within the same series seems to me to be more in accordance with the policy than the guideline.
  • Context: There is nothing wrong with an article title providing context, or even specific clarification. Further, it is routine for many article titles on Wikipedia to include a clarifying suffix, even when not specifically needed for disambiguation. It is done routinely with people's names, it is done with television episodes, and it is routinely recommended with ships, to include a suffix identification number. Are the "anti-suffix" editors now wanting to do a massive sweep through all ship articles on Wikipedia, to remove those suffixes as well?

And I'm adding another category:

  • WikiProject consensus: I am extremely concerned by this deliberate disregarding of good faith consensus-building in WikiProjects. It sounds like what some people here at NC-TV are saying, is that if a group of WikiProject Wikipedians come to a consensus decision, that the decision becomes invalid as soon as a non-WikiProject person questions it. I disagree with that assessment, as it violates the policy of assume good faith. I am also debating if it might be worth proceeding to ArbCom about this. First though, is anyone else aware of previous ArbCom decisions about this kind of situation? Have there been any cases where a WikiProject came up with a set of guidelines for the articles within its sphere of influence, and then there was a protest that the WikiProject guidelines were in violation with more general Wikipedia-wide guidelines?

In summary, I believe that there are multiple "correct" ways to handle television episode articles, and that the guidelines here should not be looked at as a way to enforce one and only one system, but as a recommendation for a primary method, while allowing that occasional exceptions are not necessarily a problem. --Elonka 21:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I still see no presentation of an idea of why an exception to the guideline should be allowed. You have again failed to answer the question "Why is this special?" Without an answer to that question no exception should ever be allowed for the sake of Wikipedia as a whole. Jay32183 21:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, thank you for responding. I'd like to point out that at no point did I claim that your arguments were "unreasoned" — that word is yours, not mine.

I disagree with your suggestion that the prevalence of preemptive disambiguation for television episode page titles is indicative that this preemptive disambiguation is "intuitive". I would suggest instead that it is merely imitative. Due to Wikipedia's systemic bias, the Star Trek series were among the first television series to have WIkipedia pages for all episodes. Thus, the example of the Star Trek pages was readily available, and was widely imitated by fans of other television series. This doesn't mean that the preemptive disambiguation is less confusing than disambiguating only when necessary, only that it appeared to be "the way Wikipedia does things". However, outside of the realm of television, it is not the way that Wikipedia has done things, and it's time that this misconception was corrected.

I also disagree with your statement that "the only reason that has been given to change this method, is that it's "against the guidelines." " The supporters of the current guideline have given many reasons why preemptive disambiguation is a bad idea. It is true that we frequently refer to existing guidelines such as WP:D, but that is because those guidelines are well supported both by reason and by unambiguous Wikipedia-wide consensus.

As for the sentence you quoted from WP:NC, I think that Cburnett's wise suggestion of redirects addresses those concerns adequately.

I believe that you are incorrect in saying that context-providing is regularly done with people's names — this is only done when there are more than one person with the same name. And that's the point — when there's only one subject with a given title, that subject should be at that title without disambiguation. Jawaharlal Nehru is not disambiguated to Jawaharlal Nehru (Indian Prime Minister), nor should it be. Instead, Jawaharlal Nehru is placed in the category Category:Prime Ministers of India. Similarly, Whatever the Case May Be is in Category:Lost episodes — there's no need for it to be at Whatever the Case May Be (Lost).

As for the example of ships, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) explains the reasons why naval ships are labelled with their hull numbers: specifically, because "It is extremely common for many ships to share a name. Therefore disambiguation needs special attention." I believe that the example of USS Virginia (ten ships by that name) is more common than USS Eichenberger (one ship) — and note that USS Eichenberger is a redirect to USS Eichenberger (DE-202).

As for the issue of WikiProject consensus, I see no evidence that the editors of this page are riding roughshod over previously established WikiProject consensuses. Indeed, great lengths have been taken to include the members of WikiProjects who have been preemptively disambiguating. The Star Trek WikiProject in particular has been invited to join the conversation on several occasions. No one is saying that the decisions of a WikiProject are overridden by the views of non-project members. All that is being said is that if a WikiProject makes a decision that appears to be in contradiction to a general Wikipedia guideline or policy, that decision should be explained and justified to the larger community. Ideally, such an explanation would lead to a general conversation about the guidelines and their applicability to the case at hand. If the WikiProject's reasons for exceptions are clear and valid, they will be understood by people from outside the specialist subject, and accepted. That has not happened in this case.

Elonka, I think that you're right that guidelines are meant to be recommendations rather than absolute rules with no exceptions. Where we differ is the question of whether to explicitly list examples of those exceptions in the guideline. What I and others have been trying to say is that if you explicitly list exceptions to the guideline, the guideline becomes almost meaningless, because editors will say, "There are exceptions at x and y, so I'll make another exception at z. Now, there may indeed be legitimate reasons why editors at Star Trek in particular have chosen to preemptively disambiguate. However, those reasons have not been stated on this page. And I think it is a very bad idea to enshrine an exception into a guideline without having a clear idea of the reasoning behind it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I say "intuitive", you say "imitative." :) Whichever word we want to use, the fact remains, that there is a natural tendency for new episode articles to be created with a suffix. In the cases where this is done in a consistent manner, I cannot see as it is causing any damage to Wikipedia, and indeed, I continue to see multiple advantages to it. Now, I do see some of the disadvantages, for example I dislike seeing non-alphabetic letters in a URL line because of the extra % symbols and numbers. But for me, the disadvantages do not outweigh the advantages, and I especially do not think it is worth going through stable categories where everything has a consistent naming system, and changing things to an inconsistent naming system simply because of a desire to "enforce" a policy that isn't even a policy.
As for context-providing with people's names, it is most definitely not done just for disambiguation -- I routinely run across articles where a suffix is added, even though not specifically required for disambiguation rules. The "ships" precedent is also clear. As you pointed out, USS Eichenberger is a redirect to USS Eichenberger (DE-202). This does not appear to cause any problems, and there are plenty of other examples of "suffix" ships, such as USS Kephart (DE-207), and I'm confident that I could come up with many more.
In terms of WikiProject consensus, I am also very uncomfortable with the idea of non-WikiProject members choosing to unilaterally discard WikiProject consensus.The whole point of WikiProjects, is to get a bunch of editors together to come up with ways of dealing with the articles in a specific subject area. It is therefore to be expected that decisions will be made which might result in exceptions to "Wikipedia-wide" guidelines. This has been done with ships, it has been done with monarchs, it has been done with geographic regions, and it is done with television episodes as well. Indeed, with the Lost articles, we went through a months-long debate and mediation, before we hammered out a set of guidelines. Some of those guidelines (such as allowable length of plot summary, and types of sources that can be used), are not in accordance with general Wikipedia-wide guidelines, but for the Lost community, they are the result of hard-fought consensus-building, and it is disruptive for someone else to come in who was not a part of the mediation, to say, "Well, that's not how the rest of Wikipedia does it, so I'm going to ignore your guidelines."
In the case of Star Trek, this is something that's been debated among the Star Trek editors, and they came up with their naming system. I've read their discussions, and I am prepared to respect the decisions that they made. In terms of the Lost articles, where the majority of episodes require suffixes anyway, it makes sense to add suffixes to the minority of episodes that don't require suffixes, in order to reduce confusion. The Stargate WikiProject has also come up with a system that works for them, and again, I am prepared to respect that. In the cases of television series that were named with suffixes where there wasn't a debate about it, and they just proceeded with the "imitative" reason that you described, okay, I can see moving those around, after informing those editors about concerns. But if there's already been a good faith discussion by the editors involved in a specific subject area, especially if it's a longterm discussion with multiple different editors, which resulted in a genuine consensus, I think that we should respect the decisions that they've made, rather than trying to micro-manage from a distance. Otherwise why bother spending any time at all trying to build a consensus, if a few months down the road, some other editor can come along and say, "Oh well, none of those editors are here anymore, so I guess they don't care, and we can just disregard the consensus that they came up with back then." My stand is that weeks and months of careful debate and consensus-building should count for something, and should be respected. --Elonka 04:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with so much in this statement that I'm not going to bother. Except: why should "weeks and months of careful debate and conensus-building" at a project level override the same at the Wikipedia level? In fact, this statement supports project-level everything over Wikipedia-level everything. Also, from what I remember, the mediation you mention has nothing to do with episode article naming. Re: the fact remains, that there is a natural tendency for new episode articles to be created with a suffix, that really needs a {{fact}} tag after it. Lastly, if you find other areas with disambiguated titles that don't appear to need disambiguation - and that goes against the Wikipedia guideline for that topic - please let me know and I'll be happy to move them. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"the fact remains, that there is a natural tendency for new episode articles to be created with a suffix" No, there's no such tendency. this template is added to all "list of episode" articles. A "what links here" for it shows it's been transcluded into about 600 pages, almost all of which are episode list articles.

After combing through the list, i managed to find a total of only 57 TV series that create articles with a suffix by default (list is here).

So quite frankly, you are wrong. There is no such tendency. The vast majority of TV series don't disambiguate unnessasarily. --`/aksha 04:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrapping things up

Brilliant summary up there Josiah Rowe.

It seems like the bottom line is that we're argueing about whether or not to use unneeded disambiguation when there're absolutely no valid reasons for doing so. What a waste of time. The current guildlines are fine as it is, just because two people disagreeing doesn't mean we need to scratch/change it.

The question remaining now is whether to allow exceptions to the guildlines. I can't really see a problem here either. Everyone agrees that guildlines are just guildlines and common sense exceptions are always allowed when there are valid reasons for it. And the exceptions we're talking about here...don't seem to have any valid reasons, as pointed out above.

Can we sort of...try and get things wrapped up here?

Unless of course, anyone here has anything new to say. --`/aksha 11:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Can you give an example of a (proposed) exception with a plausible reason for that? >Radiant< 12:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Other than the Lost ones being proposed here, I haven't heard any. To me, there's no such thing as exceptions to the guideline. If a situation comes up which opposes the current guideline, that would become part of the guideline, not an exception to the guideline. I haven't thought of a situation like that anyway so it's probably a moot point. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Radiant (and anyone else who's coming in late), the main issue is that the Star Trek WikiProject has somewhat long-established guidelines recommending pre-emptive disambiguation. Some people are advocating the same for Lost, using the arguments I laid out above (mostly the "consistency" one — an odd sort of fetish for the way articles look in categories, as far as I can figure). I've left a note asking the Star Trek folks to come here and explain their reasoning. I'd give them a few days to do so before we call this finished. I know it's been going on forever, but if we do it right we'll have fewer people complaining when pages start getting moved to comply with this guideline. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek and Lost have been mentioned as examples of shows that haven't followed the policy on naming, but there seem to be more than that (just looking a bit, more seem to violate the policy than follow it). Has anyone checked to see how many shows aren't following the policy (and could potentially face article renaming)? Do people intend to move every article they find that doesn't follow the policy? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If the argument against consistency is that the Star Trek pages "have always done it that way", then I don't find that a very compelling argument. So that would be a yes. >Radiant< 16:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've gotten in trouble with moves before, but I think I will if I can get support, consensus and probably present the existing policy. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
A question. Some shows use a lot of single word titles. List of Smallville episodes would need maybe 95% of its pages disambiguated. When people see other pages disambiguated, that's probably what leads to the unnecessary disambiguation. Should we set a threshhold (50%, 75%) where if that many of the pages need disambiguation, the rest should get it as well? - Peregrinefisher 18:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the need. Disambiguated titles are a necessary evil and should be avoided as much as possible - for all of the reasons given above (if you can still weed through it all). —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I mention one of my best analogies: G.I. Joe characters. Should they are be pre-emptively dabbed because the writers rarely come up with an original name? No. And no to your question. Though, for better or worse, the episode articles are left to the unofficial "Smaillville Wiki." Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Smallville is a great example, because in it's case there aren't actually any episode articles hosted on Wikipedia - they are all on the Smallville wiki (hosted by Wikia, formerly Wikicities) - thus getting rid of the problem completely! Not that I mind the episodes being on Wikipedia for some shows, but having the episodes hosted externally is certainly an "easy way out" .. and for those of the "we want to have a different naming convention to the rest of Wikipedia" opinion - it is the most reasonable way of getting it! -- Chuq 22:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To clear up some confusions about what people think I said, I am not advocating that all television episode articles should use a suffix, I am stating that some series, in my opinion, should be allowed to exhibit an exception to standard disambiguation guidelines. Further, I think that it makes sense for those editors who are most familiar with a particular subset of subject matter, to make that determination. For example, let's look at the Star Trek articles in Category:Star Trek episodes. In fact, let's get even more specific and look at Category:Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, where all of the episodes currently have a consistent suffix, "(TOS episode)". I realize that a couple of editors here at WP:NC-TV (specifically Wknight94 and Ned Scott) regard the Star Trek format as "evil", and they're itching to go in there and move articles to what they regard as "the right" titles. But, it's not that simple,' and further, I think that adamantly trying to enforce WP:NC-TV as a "policy", runs the danger of being actively disruptive. Here's my reasoning: The articles in that Star Trek category have been stable for quite some time. But what exactly is it that Wknight94 and Ned Scott want to do? To move every single episode that doesn't need disambiguation to just the episode title? Then, what about those with "(TOS episode)". Are we moving all of those as well, to "(Star Trek episode)", since that was the original name of the series? Or are we going to saddle each one of those episodes with the absurdly long suffix of "(Star Trek: The Original Series episode)"? I strongly believe that this is not a determination that we should be making here from WP:NC-TV -- this is a determination that the Star Trek editors who deal with these articles on a daily basis should be making, and have made, and we should trust that they acted in good faith. Also, though I'm doing some crystal ball work here, I'm willing to bet that even if we had consensus here at WP:NC-TV, and then were to suddenly descend on the Star Trek articles like birds of prey (pardon the pun) and move things around, that there would be other Star Trek editors who hadn't heard of this discussion, who would suddenly perk up and yell, "Hey! What the hell??." So there would be a good chance that categories which have been relatively peaceful for months, would suddenly turn into a battleground. Is this really what we want?

In other words, It ain't broke, so why does it need fixing? Let's please trust that editors who are familiar with the subject matter, who are familiar with the various ways of distinguishing the different series, have been doing their best, in good faith, to come up with a reasonable and professional way of handling those many episodes. We shouldn't be trying to micro-manage every TV series from here, we should just be coming up with a general guideline, and then allowing for exceptions. --Elonka 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am stating that some series, in my opinion, should be allowed to exhibit an exception to standard disambiguation guidelines. We know what the suggestion is, but we are asking - WHY? The only attempt at a "reason" that anyone has given for this is "because it is already like that" which is not a valid reason. What is the point of a guideline if there are just going to be exceptions? The comments above about (TOS episode) vs (Star Trek episode) are a non-sequitur and not relevant to this discussion. I saw links to this discussion on many other pages, so I would presume there would be one the Star Trek WikiProject one as well - I'll go look now, and mention it if it isn't already. -- Chuq 23:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It has already been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Naming conventions poll. I notice the project lists Wikipedia:WikiProject Television as one of its parents wikiprojects, so in *theory* they should be involved with making, and abide by, decisions here that affect them -- Chuq 23:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it was Mr. Spock from Star Trek II who said that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the needs of the one. In Wikipedia terms, the standards of Wikipedia outweigh the standards of the projects or the standards of an individual. With your tone above, it sounds like you need to read WP:OWN. That being said, I've heard that someone has already mentioned this discussion at the Star Trek project and I haven't seen anyone coming here looking for blood. With how long those articles have been in place, I highly doubt the holy war you're envisioning would really happen. I'll bet many there would hail us as heroes liberating them from their annoying article names. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It ain't broke, so why does it need fixing? -Elonka When the naming violates broadly followed Wikipedia naming conventions, particularly those reflected in the WP:D and WP:NC(CN) naming guidelines, it is broke. As far as how to disambiguate those titles that require disambiguation, there is a lot of leeway there. But those where the epidode name alone creates a unique article title within Wikipedia should not have any additional information in their title, and, yes, they should be changed. Of course, any change like this should be done along with a note on the relevant Talk page, including a link to this survey and discussion. --Serge 00:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I don't have a problem with leaving them as (TOS episode). We already abbreviate "TV" all over the place here. Hope that makes you feel better. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Serge and Wknight94 — the Star Trek example is broken. However, if a Star Trek page does need disambiguating, I don't particularly care how it's labelled. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is actually a very simple way to address this: bring the editors responsible for starting and/or continuing the current Star Trek naming scheme into our discussion. Elonka is right in that we should assume that they acted in good faith when they made their decisions about that convention, and we should hear and address their reasons before making any changes to the pages there.
If the ST folks joined us for a polite, open-minded, constructive, consensus-oriented discussion about naming conventions, then whatever we came up with would be consensus with a captial C. Does anyone have their number? --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 00:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
That's why I invited them over. No sign of them yet... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why must Star Trek (or any other show) have an exception to the policies and guidelines? If those episode pages were to get moved to names consistent with the rest of wikipedia, how exactly would that make those pages any worse? And what does "familiarity with the subject" have to do with naming? What could possibly be so unique to Star Trek that it requires a different naming convention than every other article on wikipedia? It sounds like you just want to make your own rules instead of following the WP rules. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Could we stop bring up "good faith"? This isn't about assuming someone has good or bad intentions. This is about deciding what's more important: well-intentioned actions that don't have positive results (and clear/solid reasoning) or following a sound guideline thorough Wikipedia to maintain trie consistancy. No one here is saying that the projects/Wikipedian(s) reponsible are "evil doers". The issue is whether they should be exceptions and why. And as for bringing in others, they're welcome to come; they always were. The most we could/should do is contact them, but if they don't want to join in,—which seems to be the case—we can't force 'em. So, if all that's clear, can we please focus? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It's beautiful irony:
  • Side A: The guideline is fine the way it is.
  • Side B: You just want that because "that's the way it's always been".
  • Side A: Let's go change the Star Trek articles.
  • Side B: You can't change the Star Trek standard! That's the way it's always been!
Being both for and against the same line of thinking within a one-week span: priceless.
—Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
WK, it's not quite that simple. The guideline was here first. \~_*/
Seriously, though, they chose to ignore the guideline for reasons that don't hold up. And since they are exceptions to this general convention, I'd imagine their method isn't "the way it's always been." More...the way it's been for the majority of the time. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The same guidelines were ignored when the vast majority of U.S. cities were bot-created with predisambiguated names using the comma convention. Help in getting that fixed too would be much appreciated! (e.g, why is Los Angeles at Los Angeles, California?). --Serge 01:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any point in waiting. Elonka had already posted a notice on the talk pages of all the star trek episode main articles (that is, the "list of" articles) (here, here, here, here and here) 10 days ago. notices were also posted onto the disambiguation guildline talk page and the NC main guildline talk page asking for people to join in. It's long enough warning for people to join us.

Elonka, your entire argument breaks down when we see exactly how the disambiguation standard in the star trek articles came about. Here're the previous discussions by the star trek project on naming conventions:

I suggest everyone take a look, they're not all that long.

Now is this enough for everyone?--`/aksha 04:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough — of the two most active participants in those discussions, one (Cburnett) is the author of the current compromise on the guideline page, and the other (E Pluribus Anthony) has left Wikipedia. I suppose there's been enough time for anyone who cares to discuss it here. (Of course, I fully expect more people to show up protesting as soon as we start putting the guideline into effect, but I suppose we've done our duty.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Josiah, I apologize that I didn't notice your invitation of the Star Trek folks when I posted earlier... and Yaksha is right in that we've made several posts over there so anyone who has interested should probably have joined our discussion by now.
I bring up "good faith" not because I am defending the ST project's naming conventions (on the contrary, I look forward to the consistency TV:NC can bring over there), but because we should be respectful as we bring those pages into consistency with the guideline. While there's nothing stopping us from starting to move pages (maybe it's already begun?), why don't we begin by put something like this on the ST talk page:

Greetings, Star Trek editors!

There has been an extended discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) for several weeks concerning the naming of television episode articles on Wikipedia. A consensus has been reached that article titles should only include disambiguating phrases when there is another article on Wikipedia with the same name as the episode name. Thus, Circus Knights would not need any disambiguation, where Nobody Does It Better (Knight Rider) would, in order to differentiate it from Nobody Does It Better (song).

This has actually been a very long-thought-out discussion, and has had input from many editors from many different shows and WikiProjects, including Star Trek. However, because the Star Trek episodes are so plentiful, and have used a differing system for some time now, the editors contributing to TV:NC felt it appropriate to mention it here before people started moving episode articles to new names. Rest assured that these changes are not being made flippantly, but only after a long discussion about how to best comply with Wikipedia's general article naming scheme.

Thank you for your help!

This repeats some information Josiah and other posted earlier on, but I think it would show some respect for the editors over there, and it might avoid some reversion wars. I think it would be good to add the article moving to the WikiProject "to-do" list (if there is one), and anyone who is moving pages over there should do it right, fixing secondary links along the way.
Also, I tidied up the guideline formatting just a bit, since we might have a lot more people looking at it here pretty soon. As always, revert me if you disagree... :) --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 06:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
it seems a tad redundant, since any editor who regularly visits the ST talk page would also be keeping track of the ST project's page. But i guess, no harm done in being poliet. I'm defintely in support of dropping a note to the ST project page before any moving begins. The last thing we need is another article move war over this. --`/aksha 07:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Which talk page were you thinking of putting it on? The Wikiproject's, or the talk page of one or more of the Star Trek articles? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikiproject. Unless you really want to go spam hundreds of individual episode articles with notices =P. Passing editors who have edited individual episode articles are really not likely to care. Besides, whoever does the moving can just include a link to the discussion here in their summary. --`/aksha 07:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is conflating two issues - the first is whether Star Trek episode articles should use disambiguation if that isn't in fact necessary (which we're actually discussing here). The second is what kind of suffix they should use when disambiguation is necessary (which is an unrelated issue probably best left to the Star Trek wikiproject). Confusion over the second is not a very strong reason for opposing the first. >Radiant< 13:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, isn't that what we're trying to do? Move pages which have unneeded disambiguation to get rid of the uneeded disambiguation. We don't seem to be getting any strong agreements on the second issue and it doesn't seem to be all that important anyway. --`/aksha 00:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Qualification

I changed this:

Where an episode title is the same as a character or similar object also present in the series, disambiguate further using the word "episode":

to this:

Where an episode title is the same as a character or object from the series which might reasonably have its own page, disambiguate further using the word "episode":

because otherwise episodes named after characters who don't necessarily deserve their own pages (such as The Outrageous Okona or Inca Mummy Girl) might get disambiguated. Recording my reasoning here in case anyone disagrees. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The "might reasonably have" language is open to too much interpretation, unnecessarily, I think. I suggest (but did not change):

Where an episode title is the same as a character or object from the series which has its own page, disambiguate further using the word "episode":

Requiring a page move in the rare instances where a page is created with a conflicting character or object name is no big deal. We require the same for any undisambiguated episode title should another page with the same name in Wikipedia be created. --Serge 06:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's quite reasonable, and I've gone ahead and made the change. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to beat this to death, but this seems to raise a small problem to me. Isn't the usual disambiguation method on Wikipedia to first disambiguate by the most general term? For example, the WP:NC guideline for books is to first use "novel" or "short story", and only to include the author's name when just the type isn't enough. Same with albums ("album" first, then band name), films ("film" first, then year), etc. In other words, the primary disambiguator is what the item is, not what it relates to. This method appears to be used almost exclusively. With that in mind, shouldn't "episode" be the preferred disambiguator here, and the series name only be used when additionally needed? Using the series name first seems to be contrary to established conventions. -- Fru1tbat 14:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You're probably right but that might send you off into every other part of Wikipedia because that guideline breakage is done everywhere. Take a look through any category of baseball players and you'll find an unpleasant mix of (baseball player) and (baseball) and (athlete) and (outfielder) and (Twins player), etc. That mistake is far more prevalent than this first issue being discussed here. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree strongly with Fru1tbat - I mentioned up here that (24), (Medium), (House), (Lost) or (Oz) after a name may be more confusing, causing readers to think that there is a Small and Large version of something, or that a House episode name refers is an article about a type of building. No-one else has really agreed with me though so I have left it alone. Wknight, just because other areas of Wikipedia may need cleanup in this regard, doesn't mean we can't be the first! -- Chuq 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry to sneak in here after the fact) Chuq, that's fine to be the first but that's a holy war I'm not passionate enough to fight in. But best of luck to you in that battlefield!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The policy really says to use the simplest method of disambiguation. The word episode could also cause confusion, because it really means an incident as part of a series. We'd probably then have to specify that these are television episodes to avoid that confusion. The series name is probably the simplest and least confusing way to disambiguate. Even with the examples given there would be a difference between Pilot (House) and Pilot (house) the former being an aspect of the tv series House named Pilot and the latter a house named Pilot. I know some of you don't like the capital letter disambiguation, but when people search with capital letters they're generally looking for a proper noun. Also, using the series name rather than episode will avoid all conflicts of two tv series having the same episode name. We don't want to have arguments about which episode is more notable and therefore gets the shorter title. I was in one of the discussions between Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state), and it was not pretty. Jay32183 21:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes - the capital would give it away to me - but the general reader may not. I think there is less chance of confusion with the word "episode" though. Compare to the term "(character)" where I used "(Jericho character)" as a disambiguator; the word "character" by itself isn't really very specific, it could even refer to a non-fictional person, so I usually go with the full descriptor (series and "item") for characters. See Category:Jericho characters -- Chuq 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
With the character thing I've been leaning towards stuff like Jack Spicer (Xiaolin Showdown) rather than Jack Spicer (character). The term character may be confusing, what Jack Spicer am I talking about. But knowing it's the Xiaolin Showdown Jack Spicer, I don't actually need to know it's a character because I now know it isn't any other Jack Spicer. Jay32183 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (edconf) Arguably a "Star Trek episode" is more related to "Star Trek" than to "episode". The guideline you cite shouldn't be taken too far; technically a "book" is a kind of "media" or "object". >Radiant< 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Other programs not in accordance with this guideline

Milo Minderbinder made a good point above, that there are lots more television series not in compliance with this guideline than just the Star Trek series. Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, for instance, seem to follow the Star Trek model — I only just noticed this when Inca Mummy Girl came up as a redlink above. While we're dropping polite notes, we should probably drop one at the Buffyverse WikiProject too. Does anyone know what other series are preemptively disambiguating, and whether they have WikiProjects? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Stargate. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tons, actually...
stargate - Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate (Project informed on 10/11)
lost - Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost just waiting for speedy deletion requests to come through, otherwise done
star trek - Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek
buffy and angel - Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse (Project informed on 10/11)
4400 - Wikipedia:WikiProject The 4400
some mortal combat series - Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat (done)

episodes for these TV series are also in the Star Trek format:
Big Love (done)
Desperate Housewives (done)
Charmed(done)
Firefly (TV series)(false alarm)
 Six Feet Under(done)
Battlestar Galactica (fixed now)
List of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series) episodes (done)
Dark Angel (TV series)(false alarm)
Forever Knight(done)
Harsh Realm(done)
LEXX(done)
The Outer Limits (old series) done
The Outer Limits (new series)done
Roswell (TV series) Verified for episodes which have articles - most episodes do not. --Serge 00:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Sliders (done)
The X-Files
Torchwood (false alarm, the disambiguation was actually needed on torchwood episodes)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series)
Frasier
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series)
InuYasha
House (TV series) done
That '70s Show admin assitance needed for Hyde's Father (That '70s Show episode) otherwise done
M*A*S*H
Naruto seems to have an issue over what the actual titles should be for episodes that haven't aired in North America
The O.C.
The Wire (TV series)
Blackadder
Fullmetal Alchemist done
My Name Is Earl
Prison Break
Ben 10
The Prisoner
The Sopranos
X-Men
Code Lyokodone
Planetes
The Pretender (TV series)
Sex and the Citydone
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
Strangers with Candydone
Entourage (TV series) (done) --Serge 00:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Langt fra Las Vegas(done)
8 Simple Rules
Eureka (TV series)(done)
Supernatural (TV series)(done)
Oz (TV series)(done)
Ōban Star-Racers(done)
Weeds (TV series)(done)
Law & Order: Criminal Intent (done)
Jericho (TV series)(done)

That should be all of it.

In other words, tons of article moving if people decide to go through with this. Any volunteers here? --`/aksha 11:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Certainly. Picking one at random, I fixed Battlestar Galactica (both the old and the new episodes). That took me about fifteen minutes using tabbed browsing. >Radiant< 13:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the research, Yaksha. There's obviously a lot of work to be done.
As long as we're explaining our motives in edit summaries and/or talk pages and directing people here, I'd like to think we'll avoid being seen as insensitive thugs. Perhaps the polite notice I posted above is only necessary when there is discussion on talk pages about naming systems? If no one has discussed it for a particular show, I think we can assume that no one is too worried about it. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It's probably best to put a note, maybe just in the edit summary, everywhere we make the changes. People who haven't been keeping up will be confused, and it could prevent a revert. - Peregrinefisher 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Since the "suffix" method is more prevalent than I'd thought, I strongly recommend that we not inform those WikiProjects/series with the language of, "There is already consensus," but instead that we tell them that there is currently discussion, and that we invite them to the party. I also recommend that we create a template to make this announcement. I overall like Toby's wording, but instead of announcing it as "consensus has already been reached," how about we state that there is an active discussion, to which any interested editors are invited? I think that would be a bit more respectful. For example:
Greetings! There is currently an active discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television) about how to title television episode articles (specifically, when suffixes are and aren't a good idea). The goal of these discussions is to hopefully attain a Consensus, which will then be enforced on all episode articles of all television series, all over Wikipedia. Since the result of this discussion will very likely directly impact the naming of this particular article, any editors involved with this article are encouraged to join the discussion. IF YOU DO NOT PARTICIPATE, YOU SHOULD NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE RESULTING DECISION. If you would like to participate, please join the discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC - Episode suffixes. Thanks!
Further, before we invite a bunch more people, can we please get rid of the old poll, and start something new, with wording that we're all in agreement with before it opens (and wording that doesn't change multiple times while it's running?). That would do a lot to allay my own concerns. For example, I'd like to see a question with wording like, "Should WikiProjects about a particular show, be allowed to make decisions that affect the article titles for that show, or must all decisions go through WP:NC-TV?" and "Should some television series be allowed to use a consistent naming convention where all episodes end with a suffix such as (<series> episode), or must all episodes be named strictly according to Wikipedia disambiguation guidelines, meaning no suffix unless there's already another article with the same title, elsewhere on Wikipedia? Note that this might mean that some series would then have a majority of episodes with suffixes, and a minority of episodes without, which could look odd in some cases." --Elonka 19:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
A new poll that's not confusing sounds good. "IF YOU DO NOT PARTICIPATE, YOU SHOULD NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE RESULTING DECISION" sounds a little harsh, I would leave that part out, otherwise a good idea. Maybe we should archive this page in preperation for the new poll. - Peregrinefisher 19:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
We already answered the question about removing the old poll. No. There's no reason to. If you want to start a new poll with new questions, go ahead. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, IMHO questions like that are not up for vote or discussion. These articles are part of Wikipedia and as had been mentioned repeatedly there is no logical reason why there should be exceptions. Wording in standards that pre-emptively allow for an exception then isn't a standard - its an option, and that's what we are trying to avoid. -- Chuq 20:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there's no need for another poll. The conversation has superceded the poll, and a consensus has been reached (at least among the active participants in this discussion). We could formally close the poll above, if that would help, but I really think that another poll would be a waste of time.
However, I do agree that we should politely inform all WikiProjects that have been using preemptive disambiguation of our discussion, and the direction it has gone. I'm thinking of something like this, based on Toby's proposed note:
Greetings, <nameofseries> editors!
As you may be aware, for the last several weeks there has been extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) about how Wikipedia articles on television episodes should be named. Editors from many areas of Wikipedia, including members of several different television WikiProjects, have worked together and come up with a general guideline that article titles should include disambiguating phrases only when there is another article on Wikipedia with the same name as the episode name. Thus, if you were creating episode articles for Knight Rider, the episode Circus Knights would not need any disambiguation, whereas Nobody Does It Better (Knight Rider) would, in order to differentiate it from Nobody Does It Better (song). However, the guideline also recommends that Circus Knights (Knight Rider) exist as a redirect to the episode.
The discussion has been fairly well-advertised at the Village Pump, in many WikiProjects' talk pages and on the talk pages of many television program episode lists. However, the editors contributing to the discussion at WP:TV-NC felt that it was appropriate to make one last call for discussion before people started moving episode articles to new names.
We've noticed that many episodes of <nameofseries> are pre-emptively disambiguated: for example, <exampleepisode> is at <examplelocation>, even though there is no Wikipedia article at <examplelocationwithoutdisambig>. If you feel that there are strong reasons for this that have not already been considered, please join the discussion at WT:TV-NC. (The current recommendations have been reached after much consideration, and are based on a long discussion about how to best comply with Wikipedia's general article naming scheme.)
We appreciate the work that editors do in every area of Wikipedia, and want you to feel included in the decision-making process. Thank you for your help!
That's probably a bit wordy, but I was trying to balance the need for full inclusion (everybody has the right to participate in the discussion) with the practicalities of this debate (which I'm sure most of us are rather fatigued over — we don't want to have to explain the same points over and over again). What do you think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I crossed out Torchwood from the list - it actually follows the standard convention, but may look otherwise at first glance because many episode titles are common phrases. For example, Everything Changes (Torchwood) vs. Cyberwoman. --Brian Olsen 21:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I actually turned Everything Changes into a disambiguation page, because there were pre-existing links to two different pop songs by that name... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bit dicey to ask "Should WikiProjects about a particular show, be allowed to make decisions that affect the article titles for that show, or must all decisions go through WP:NC-TV?" The question basically asks if NC-TV should have any authority - if the end result is "no" then you might as well disband NC-TV completely. If you want to change the policy, propose a new wording of the policy. I think the wording of the current poll is just fine, if the validity is questioned because it changed during the poll, just run it again. Also, the issue isn't even whether TV shows must follow NC-TV - the shows in question violate WP:NAME and WP:D. If you really want to name episodes however you want, the proper course of action is to get those two changed (or at the very least post the same notice there and any similarly appropriate places). Trying to override those two from a subset of wikipedia doesn't seem fair to the rest of the editors. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The list didn't actually take that long. Thanks to the fact that almost all "list of [TV series] episode" articles use the same few templates. I just did a lot of "what links here" for the templates.

Yes, posting a note to the stargate project and the buffyverse project would be poliet, and i'm about to do that.

Star Trek has already been informed on many talk pages, but there's be 0 response on any of them. I think it's safe to assume they're well informed but just don't care/mind.

Most of the ppl in the lost and 4400 project are already here. And parrallel discussions were already going on in those two projects before they got bought here, so they're well informed.

As for the series without projects, let's just go ahead. We need to balance practicality with the need to include everyone. We should just make sure we always explain and link here on the summaries so it gives people a fair chance to come here and complain/debate the moves. --`/aksha 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Buffyverse, Stargate and the mortal combat projects have been informed. I've cut out one of the paragraphs about preemtive disambiguation, because it's not needed...as every episode covered by the two projects already have proper articles. --`/aksha 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Yaksha. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well...someone from the Mortal Kombat end responded by doing the moving themselves. They missed a few, so i'm just going to go ahead and mop up. --`/aksha 05:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, your version of the "polite note" is excellent; I was thinking of something along the same lines all day but haven't been able to get to a computer until now. :)

Looking at this from the point of view from a new editor coming into the discussion, I wonder if it would be beneficial to:

  • Archive at least some of the extraordinarily long discussion on this talk page
  • Add a new section titled something like "Episode Article Names FAQ" that succinctly summarizes the most common concerns regarding the guideline along with tactful answers to those concerns as brought up here

The second point here is served pretty well by Josiah's previous summary, but we might be able to make it easier for new people by restating that in a way that is oriented toward them. Does anyone else think this would be useful? I'd hate for anyone to be turned off by the sheer length of prose on this talk page, if they're just looking for some enlightenment on the naming convention. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 07:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm relunctant to archieve a discussion so recent, but this is....quite huge. Perhaps just archieve everything up to Josiah's previous summary? --`/aksha 08:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea, and I'm going to be bold and do that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I've archived everything up to the "crawling up Mount Consensus"; the page was 250 kilobytes long, so I think this was appropriate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Multi-part episodes

I thought I'd check in here, as I've had to start a deletion review over an episode article that was deleted on the grounds that, according to guidelines, episodes with more than one part should be included entirely within the same article. Can anyone cite or otherwise verify this for me, or is it a load of hooey? --BlueSquadronRaven 18:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anywhere that says you have to do it as one, but there are features if that's what you want at Template:TVep. - Peregrinefisher 19:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I was sure I'd seen a guideline page that stated that multi-part articles should only have one article... Ah, there it is: Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes/structure. Kind of an obscure place for such a guideline, but there it is: "Multipart episodes should have only one article." For what it's worth, I agree. To me, the title of an episode is more significant than how many parts it happened to be broadcast in, especially considering the number of parts may differ between original broadcast and syndication/DVD, or different broadcast markets anyway. If the producers choose to use the same title for more than one part, it's probably better to keep them in the same article. -- Fru1tbat 19:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
If it's truly one episode, one entry is fine. If they have their own credits and different guest stars or whatever, I think they should get multiple entries. - Peregrinefisher 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
That's still not grounds for a deletion. The pages should be merged and then left as redirects to keep the edit history in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Jay32183 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As it stands, very little would be lost in the deletion of the articles I'm currently asking about this for. Only some infobox information would need to be transcribed. The rest of the article is basically only a starting point for more to be added. And, as such, it has already been moved about. Thanks!--BlueSquadronRaven 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Executive Summary

WOW! I've been gone for a few days and it looks like this just exploded and has now started to move towards a conclusion. Could someone give me the executive summary so I don't have to read through it all? Also we may want to archive this (if the discussions all done) and rather then calling it /Archive 4 with just a date it might be best to call it /Disambig Guidline Discussion that way it's easily identifiable. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  09:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, lots more argueing back and forth between individuals. Josiah created an summary of arguments (first edit of the section "reasons for exceptions"), after which i suggested we wrap things up here. The Star Trek example was still the main point of debate - so a notice was posted over at the star trek project page asking for input. The original discussions that led to the Star Trek project taking their current naming convention was fished out(here, here, and here).
Towards the end, i think we pretty much agreed on sticking with the "disambiguate only when needed" clause. The "should we allow exceptions" is still a little up in the air. Which is why notices have been posted to the talk pages of wikiprojects for TV series that use the "always disambiguate" form asking for input. Otherwise, a list of all TV series which use the "always disambiguate" format was generated (see "Other programs not in accordance with this guideline" section). The "should we use "nameofseries" or "nameofseries episode"" is still up in the air too, and i think people have just decided it isn't that important.
Now, we're waiting for responses from the wikiprojects of TV series which always disambiguate, moving pages for TV series that always disambiguate but don't have wikiprojects, and thinking about archieving this page.
Also, some minor changes were made to the naming conventions, you can just take a look at the history for the project page. --`/aksha 10:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this section in the flood. For my own version of the "executive summary", it is my opinion that there is not yet a consensus, and details can be seen below in the section entitled, "Why there is not yet a consensus" . It is my opinion that the old poll was seriously flawed, and that we need to agree on wording for a new poll, which should be run in a clean manner. The wording is currently being discussed in the section entitled, "What's actually being proposed?". The basic things being discussed are whether:
  1. All television episodes should be required to be in strict accordance with WP:DAB (which would involve hundreds, if not thousands of page moves);
  2. All television episodes should be required to use suffixes (which would definitely involve thousands of page moves); or
  3. Television series should be handled on a case-by-case basis, with related WikiProjects making the decision on what works best for their sphere of influence (which is basically the way that things have been working for a long time, it just hasn't been explicitly declared that way in the guideline).
My own recommendation is that we update the guideline to reflect actual practice. --Elonka 19:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments from WikiProject Stargate

Firstly, thank you to Yaksha for letting the project know about this discussion - it seems we managed to miss it somehow (at least, I haven't noticed any names from people active on the project). Secondly, I'd like to explain how we do Stargate episodes and why. All episodes are "disambiguated" with either (Stargate SG-1) or (Stargate Atlantis), non-episode articles are disambiguated with (Stargate) only when necessary. The main reason for this is consistancy - it makes it much easier to link to episodes when you know exactly where to find them. Having redirects would help, but it's always best to link directly to an article if you can. One of the most important times we need to know the exact names is with out templates, of which we use a lot. The main ones relevant to this discussion are {{sgcite}} and {{xsgcite}} which take the name of the episode (and optionally the initial of the show, defaulting to SG-1) and output it with the appropriate disambiguation in the appropriate format for mentioning episodes inline, and in references, respectively.

If we were going to move all the articles to undisambiguated titles, we'd end up linking to redirects almost every time we mention an episode. --Tango 09:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No point in explaining reasons here.. the people against suffixes are attempting to nullify anyone supporting them, and have even began moving pages with no consensus to do it. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You are mistaken, Matthew, we have a rather strong consensus and arguments all made above.
In response to Tango, there is no harm to link to a redirect, and a bot or something like AWB can easily update all of that. The templates are also an easy fix. I'll gladly help out where I can. There really isn't an issue here, and it's probably a lot easier than you think. -- Ned Scott 10:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we're going to need a FAQ for this :) if we move "episode (Stargate SG-1)" to "episode", it automatically leaves a redirect, so there are no technical problems for the Wikiproject. It's not "always best to link directly to an article", linking to a redirect is perfectly fine or the developers wouldn't have created them. >Radiant< 10:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one of the good things about redirects is that you can link to the "wrong article" but readers will still arrive at the "right article". However, i don't quite understand what you said about the templates. If we moved the star trek episode articles, exactly what is going to go wrong with the templates? Will they just result in links which are redirects, or is there also some other concern? --`/aksha 10:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Linking to a redirect takes noticeably longer to load than linking directly, and I would imagine causes twice the load on the servers. Redirects are convenient, but they shouldn't be used intentionally without good reason - they are there so your links will still work if you make a mistake on the name. The templates will work fine after all the articles are moved, but they'll all be disambiguated because it's impossible for the template to know where the article is, so they'll be a lot of redirects (and not ones a bot or AWB can fix, as we don't subst the templates because we might want to change the formatting in the future). I don't think causing inconsistency within a project and large numbers of redirects is worth it just to avoid a little inconsistency with the rest of Wikipedia. --Tango 10:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
They don't take any longer to load, nor do they cause "double" the server load. Most of the templates can be adapted. Don't be scared, there won't be more work to do to cite an episode, it won't hurt Wikipedia, all will be fine. There is no major negative side effect. -- Ned Scott 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No expert on technicalities here, but this seems to show that redirects are not very taxing on the server at all. "In other words, readers of Wikipedia would have to use a redirect link about 10,000 times before it would be worthwhile to replace that link with a direct link.". --`/aksha 11:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, maybe I was imagining the slower response to redirects (or just thinking about viewing them with popups, which is definitely slower, it seems to do the redirect manually). My comment about the server load was secondary - I was more worried about the loading times for users.
The templates can certainly not be adapted, they'll have to link to the redirect page (which you've now convinced me isn't a serious problem, so it doesn't matter).
--Tango 15:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(showname) or (showname episode)

OK, we've decided to follow WP's rules for disambiguation. Let's decide if a page that must be disambiguated should have (showname) or (showname episode) appended to it. Obviously, if (showname) is chosen and it's already taken by a character page or someting, use (showname episode). - Peregrinefisher 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(showname)

  1. support Let's keep it as simple as possible. - Peregrinefisher 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Abstain. There is already a vote on this particular issue above... I suggest you close this repeat survey and vote up there. We might want to move that survey down to the bottom of this page. --Serge 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Someone (anonymously) just archived the survey above. In general, it's frowned upon to repeat a survey so soon after having one on the same issue, especially when the first one had so many participants. This instantiation of the survey needs to be justified somehow in order to be credible. --Serge 20:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Josiah Rowe stated above that he did the archieving, because the page was getting way too long.
  4. In most cases, I think clashes between episodes and other articles about the show can be avoided in a similar way to how Stargate pages are done - episodes get the name of the show, other articles just get "(Stargate)". I think other shows use a similar system (non-episode Buffy articles are suffixed "(Buffyverse)" for instance, so their episodes could be "(Buffy)" [they are currently "(Buffy Episode)"]). --Tango 18:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak support. My general preference is for shorter disambiguation phrases, so (Showname) is better than (Showname episode); however, I think that as long as pre-emptive disambigution is avoided, it doesn't really matter that much which disambiguation phrase is used when it is necessary. I'd prefer to finish up the other debate before getting bogged down in this one; I actually think we can let this aspect go for a while. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Always in favor of keeping it simple. But do agree this was not the more important of the issues. Jay32183 21:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support (obviously except in the examples of Serenity (Firefly episode), Angel (Buffy episode), Captain Jack Harkness (Torchwood episode) etc.)~ZytheTalk to me! 21:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support --`/aksha 03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

(showname episode)

Summary of naming issue

I still feel quite strongly that the earlier RfC poll is invalid, because its format and wording were changed so many times while it was in-process.[21][22][23] [24][25][26][27] [28] [29][30][31][32][33] [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] [43][44][45][46] [47][48]for just a few diffs to indicate the mass confusion.

As such, I'd like to start over fresh, with a summary of the issue, and a new poll, where we agree on the wording beforehand, then open it, and refrain from changing the wording while it's in process. As such, here's my own "nutshell synopsis" of the issue as it stands:

On a careful review of current Wikipedia practices, it is clear that in situations where a television series has individual episodes, that in many cases, the editors who created the episode articles chose to use a consistent naming system, where a suffix of (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) was added to each article title, even when not specifically required by disambiguation rules.
As this practice has come to light, some editors who are in favor of a more strict interpretation of disambiguation guidelines, say that this process is improper, and that all of these hundreds of television articles should be changed to bring them back into strict adherence (meaning that a suffix should only be included if it is absolutely necessary for disambiguation purposes if there's another article of the same title elsewhere on Wikipedia).
Other editors feel that there's nothing wrong with the practice of consistent suffixes, and that it has various advantages, such as consistency in linking, making category listings look cleaner, and providing helpful context in watchlists. They believe that the Naming Conventions guideline should be updated to indicate that this "allow consistent suffixes" method should be included as an acceptable alternative for article naming. Or in other words, per Wikipedia:Guideline, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"
Other editors feel that the "consistent suffix" method should be generally discouraged, but that it may be warranted as an exception in certain situations. For example, some series have cases where the majority of their episodes already require a suffix for disambiguation reasons, so it might make sense to also add a suffix to the minority of episodes that don't have it, for consistency's sake. Other series have gone through multiple title changes (such as Star Trek), and those editors have chosen to use a consistent (<abbreviation> episode) system, such as "(TOS episode)" "(DS9 episode)", etc.
A potential poll question for this issue is: "When is it appropriate for articles about episodes of a television series to use a consistent naming system, such a consistent suffix of (<seriesname> episode) after each episode title?" Answers could be "Always - all series should use this system," "Never - suffixes should only be used when absolutely required for disambiguation", "Sometimes - it should be taken on a case by case basis, depending on the needs of that particular series."

Does this sound like a fair summary of the issue, and a fair wording of a poll question? If not, please feel free to suggest alternate wording. --Elonka 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The previous RfC was a total mess - I think your suggestion is pretty good :) Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe two seperate polls? One with "always", "never", and "sometimes" as above. Another with (showname) vs. (showname episode)? We should figure both things out now, while everyones watching. - Peregrinefisher 20:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see some evidence that at least one person in the prior survey voted incorrectly "because its format and wording were changed so many times" before I would agree that it is invalid. --Serge 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The above does not sound like a fair summary of the issue. For example, the second paragraph is obviously biased. I suggest:
As this practice has come to light, some editors have noted that this process creates names that are inconsistent with the way Wikipedia articles are named in general. Many editors believe that those articles that do not require disambiguation should be changed to be consistent with accepted and widely followed general Wikipedia naming conventions as reflected in the naming and disambiguation guidelines.
The above is just an example, but it's all moot because the need for a new survey has not been established per my previous point. --Serge 20:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, the existing consensus on this page is not based on the poll, but on the extensive conversation that has followed it. You are correct that the poll was altered, and some of the poll-related discussion may have been unclear, but there has been a great deal of discussion since then. Remember that polling is evil, and Wikipedia prefers discussion over voting. Accordingly, I take the many, many kilobytes of discussion into greater account than the poll, which was only a preliminary gauge of opinions. Please read Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote#Policy and guidelines — although that page has not been approved, it is an accurate description of how policies and guidelines are formed on Wikipedia.
I have yet to see any response to my summary of the arguments at #Reasons for exceptions. In this section, you have merely restated the arguments which I believe I and others have successfully argued against. All your arguments can be summarized by "consistency", "precedent" and "context", none of which are supported by other Wikipedia policies. "Common sense and the occasional exception" is a completely different matter from establishing a guideline which codifies those exceptions.
I also oppose having another poll on this subject, as I feel that the discussion (not the poll) has reached an adequate consensus, and we should move on to the next stage. You and Matthew Fenton are the only editors who disagree with the existing consensus, and consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Let's move on. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Josiah, the discussion clearly stood on it's own. Not only that, but that mass of diffs links is a bit misleading, as most of them had nothing to do with the actual formatting of the poll. The majority of the votes took place while the poll was reasonably clear in what it meant. "Mass confusion" is a bit of an exaggeration. Again, the discussion stands alone from the poll and shows support for the guideline's current version, as well as coming to the conclusion that Lost and Star Trek do not have a reasonable exemption from this guideline. -- Ned Scott 21:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, here's a compromise proposal. If you ask the people who voted against the guideline you want, and explain to them what the vote was really for, and you find more than a few people that eseentially say, "Oh!!! Is that what I supported! I wanted to vote on the other side!", then we can restart the poll. What do people think of that? Your appeal for re-starting the poll is alleged procedure problems, but the appeal needs to be won (i.e., the procedure problems need to be proven) before the poll can be re-run. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I already posted messages to those same people a long time ago. They all seem totally disinterested. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


(edit conflict) Serge, I provided *28* diffs of impropriety in that poll (and that wasn't even a complete collection), and yet still you're asking for proof? How about this, where "oppose" comments were deleted (one of them with the comment of "stupid votes")? [49][50][51]. And here are comments where people are complaining about it [52][53][54]. And Ned, even you admitted that the poll wording was changing the meaning of people's "votes": [55]. The poll is invalid. Let's bury it and go on to a better and cleaner one. And look at it this way: If you're so convinced that you have a clear and unambiguous consensus, then it won't matter how many polls we do, right? We could do 20 polls and they'd all say the same thing. So, prove it. Let's do a clean poll with no funny business, where we're in agreement with the wording before we open it. I don't see why there should be any objection to this. --Elonka 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • After being shown here and viewing the situation, I think in this instance the poll does need to be redone. Although I agree that Wikipedia is not a democracy, in this instance some voters feel violated that the poll has changed its name so many times. The wording of a poll can make participants change there view, thus it’s unfair to keep changing the wording and it makes people’s opinion on it differ. I understand that it’s going to create a lot of hassle restarting a poll but it has to be done and I’m sure those willing to participate originally will want to participate again. Most comments won’t take more than 10 minutes to write, although I do feel for those that have already expressed their opinions. When there’s a disagreement over a poll, you can’t let the poll decide a consensus. One final thing, this time it is essential to agree over the wording of the poll before it takes place. There should be no going back from this point Englishrose 22:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's redo it. It doesn't hurt anything. We need to come up with good wording from the beginning. - Peregrinefisher 23:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It hurts plenty by slowing us down. Also, as I said before, I doubt there'd be much interest. Not to mention the fact that straw polls are secondary in finding consensus. Most of the "votes" were one time deals to these people. They treated it like a petition or something abd left. Why all the push and stock over such a process? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka - You're providing evidence that things were changed around - no one is disputing that. I'm asking for evidence that any of the votes up there currently does not reflect the position of the voter at that time the vote was made. Second, you're ignoring Josiah's lucid argument about the problem with relying on polls in the first place, and the discussion establishing the true and preferred consensus. Third, you're ignoring the fact that voters were notified about the changes. Fourth, are you serious about "it won't matter how many polls we do"? Requiring people to revote is unfair (which is why I'm abstaining from the survey started today about whether "episode" should be included - even though there was no consensus on that point established). We should try to avoid voting in the first place (per Josiah's argument). We should try to avoid revotes even more. I'm starting to believe that you're just complaining for the perhaps-unconscious-and-so-in-good-faith purposes of simply delaying changes that you (and hardly anyone else) happen to oppose. --Serge 23:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Burn! Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, I don't think those diffs really prove much of anything. The question didn't really change, just the debate around it. And if anyone felt like their vote was invalidated by the change, why haven't they said so themselves. It just seems like an excuse to re-do and hope there's a different result, even though the discussion itself shows a pretty strong consensus. And I take strong issue with the proposed summary, it's incredibly biased toward those who don't want to follow the naming guidelines among other things. I'm glad to see that articles are already being renamed, let's hope that attempts at stalling don't slow it down. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As an additional reason to redo the poll, I have suspected, and am now gathering proof, of sockpuppetry in both the poll and discussion: Izzy Dot (talk · contribs). The poll is invalid, and needs to be redone. If anyone doesn't like my proposed wording, they are welcome to suggest something new. But please stop with the personal attacks, stop with the harassment, and stop accusing me of bad faith. Even without the sockpuppetry charge, we've already had multiple calls for redoing the poll, so let's stop arguing about whether or not it's necessary, and instead work on coming up with wording we agree with. --Elonka 00:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
If you absolutely insist on doing another poll, at least let the wording be agreed apon and sit for a couple days. The last thing we need is yet another poll that isn't worded neutrally and is called into question from the beginning. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, I'm sorry you are upset about the results of the poll, but the fact that the wording was changed and you have made one accusation of sockpuppetry does not change the fact that the discussion during the poll came to same conclusion as the results of the poll itself. No one is going to stop you from starting a new poll, but the reason people are trying to dissuade you from doing so is because doing a new poll is just going to be a waste of everyone's time and will come to the same conclusion that we have already reached. However, some people seem to have to learn things the hard way. If you are one of those people and do start a new poll, don't be surprised when many participants choose to abstain, commenting that the poll is unnecessary because they already voted above and a consensus has already been reached. Nohat 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, please stop repeating your refuted points while continuing to ignore the points that have been made repeatedly by multiple people in response. You're still ignoring Josiah's argument, which was supported explicitly by Ned and implicitly by several others including Yours Truly, and makes your argument that the poll is invalid moot. Now you're also ignoring my points and those of Milo and Ace Class Shadow as well, points that challenge your contention that the poll is invalid. Personal attacks? Harassment? I hope you're joking. Two or three people who are not satisfied with the outcome of a survey calling for a re-vote does not constitute proof that the poll is invalid. I'm now asking for a third time, please provide some evidence that any of the current votes in the poll do not accurately reflect the relevant voter's position. You have not done this. And I'm not accusing you of bad faith when I ask rehetorically what besides delay tactics would explain your dodging all these points and repeating your own repeatedly refuted ones? --Serge 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Did someone just accuse me of being a fucking sockpuppet? I ain't nobody's puppet, hear? Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 00:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So you are claiming to be a new account, that just happened to have elaborate knowledge of Wikipedia procedures from day one, which just happened to be a couple weeks ago? --Elonka 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I used to be an unregistered user. Read my fraggin' profile. Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Having a new account, even if he had a previous account, is in itself not a bad thing. It really would only be an issue if he was using both accounts in the same discussion. -- Ned Scott 02:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, waste of time. Discussion reached agreements, so what's the point of dragging everyone around for a new poll? We're in the agreement that the guildline should be "disambiguate only when needed", now all you're arguing about is whether to allow exceptions. The episode articles for about half a dozen series have already been moved, and there's no evidence of there being any disruption caused. Quite the opposite actually (see thereply here). So exactly what are you argueing for? to change the guildlines around to "always disambiguate"? Or is this back down to the fact that you want Lost episodes and Star Trek episodes to say the way they are? --`/aksha 03:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I came across this and thought I'd throw in an outsider's thoughts.
  • First thing: Can't you guys get along and collaborate?
  • I agree for the most part with "disambiguate only when needed." In the case of guildlines, such as this, there obviously needs to be flexibility.
  • The best course of action: Make a list of what to "allow exceptions." Then the changes will be in plain sight and you guys can debate it amongst yourselves. Just keep it WP:NPOV.
Hope that helps very little! —SolelyFacts 21:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of us can get along, and we have no problem with rationale exceptions. This is more of an issue of 2 or 3 editors being stubborn because they can't come up with a rationale exception. Also NPOV applies to how we write articles; it's ok to have a point of view on the talk page. -- Ned Scott 21:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As for why I want a new poll, I believe that with the vitriole in this discussion, where a few editors with highly uncivil communication styles are attacking anyone who disagrees with them, that this environment has not been conducive to civil discussion. Further, I believe that this discussion has been dominated by a few editors who have the time to post multiple times per day, but I do not agree that someone who posts more often, should have their opinion given more weight than that of someone who can only post a few times per week. This is another reason that I would like to see a fair poll conducted, to ensure that we have the widest possible participation, where different editors' voices are given equal weight.

Anyway, after wading through the latest series of personal attacks and incivility, here's what I've distilled as the next round of potential new poll wording. Do folks like this better?

On a careful review of current Wikipedia practices, it is clear that in situations where a television series has individual episodes, that in many cases, the editors who created the episode articles chose to use a consistent naming system, where a suffix of (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) was added to each article title, even when not specifically required by disambiguation rules.
As this practice has come to light, some editors have noted that this process creates names that are inconsistent with normal Wikipedia disambiguation guidelines, and as such, these editors believe that those articles with suffixes, that did not require them for disambiguation, should be changed to non-suffix versions in order to be consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions.
Other editors feel that there's nothing wrong with the practice of consistent suffixes, and that it has various advantages, such as consistency in linking, making category listings look cleaner, and providing helpful context in watchlists. They believe that the Naming Conventions guideline should be updated to indicate that this "allow consistent suffixes" method should be included as an acceptable alternative for article naming. Or in other words, per Wikipedia:Guideline, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"
Other editors feel that the "consistent suffix" method should be generally discouraged, but that it may be warranted as an exception in certain situations. For example, some series have cases where the majority of their episodes already require a suffix for disambiguation reasons, so it might make sense to also add a suffix to the minority of episodes that don't have it, for consistency's sake. Other series have gone through multiple title changes (such as Star Trek), and those editors have chosen to use a consistent (<abbreviation> episode) system, such as "(TOS episode)" "(DS9 episode)", etc.
A potential poll question for this issue is: "When is it appropriate for articles about episodes of a television series to use a consistent naming system, such as a consistent suffix of (<seriesname> episode) after each episode title?" Answers could be "Always - all series should use this system," "Never - suffixes should only be used when absolutely required for disambiguation", "Sometimes - it should be taken on a case by case basis, depending on the needs of that particular series."
And a related question is, "In cases where a suffix is to be used, is it better to use (<series>), (<series> episode), or to allow other methods (such as the Star Trek abbreviation system), as long as it is consistent throughout that series?

And folks, please try to keep comments civil? I've been asked why I don't specifically reply to everyone's comments here, and one reason is, that as soon as someone resorts to personal attacks or uncivility, I tend to ignore anything else they have to say (as is recommended in WP:CIVIL). So if you want your voice to be heard, please concentrate on being polite, being civil, and showing that you have as much respect for the opinions of editors who disagree with you, as respect for the opinions of those who agree with you. A civil discussion all around, will help things to move along much more smoothly. Thanks, --Elonka 23:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your allegations of incivility and personal attacks are getting boring. Take them to WP:PAIN if you feel so strongly. You're just ignoring everyone's messages here including my invitation to find people who agree that the poll was tainted. I can't figure how you can expect anyone to take your pleas for dialogue seriously when you won't partake in dialogue yourself. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No offense Elonka, but aside from Izzy Dot...you're accusations (such as "after wading through the latest series of personal attacks and incivility") have been far closer to to "uncivility" than anything else here. As far as i can see, this discussion has flowed very smoothly, beeing very productive towards the end, and very civil except for your accusations. If you believe otherwise, then please provide some examples of what you've felt to be "incivil comments" and "attacks".
Until then, i'm not going to bother furthing discussion with someone who is accusing me of being uncivil and attacking. --`/aksha 04:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so I haven't heard any objections to the new poll wording so far. Let's give it another day or so, and then if there are still no objections, we'll open, and announce on all the List/WikiProject pages about the new poll. --Elonka 21:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What in the world?! What poll? Who agreed to another poll? Are you actually going to bulldozer forward with a poll even though one single person agrees with it? Am I going insane? Is someone else agreeing with this idea of polling and polling until you get a result that you like? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. Maybe she's trying to use this straw poll to resolve the suffix issue as an excuse to make the new poll that we've all turned down already. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The poll that was "bulldozed" was the original one, which is why it needs to be re-done. If you'll take time to actually read the posts in the above discussion, editors that have so far supported the idea of a new poll are me, MatthewFenton, Peregrinefisher, EnglishRose, and Milo H Minderbinder (provided that we agree on wording). A new and cleanly-run poll is not going to hurt anything, and will hopefully help settle the matter of consensus once and for all. Let's please work on discussing the wording, rather than continuing to argue about whether or not a new poll is necessary. --Elonka 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I strongly oppose doing another poll. I don't think the changes to the previous one invalidated it in any way, and I think from the discussion there is a clear consensus with a couple individuals who don't agree. My previous comment was only that if a new poll was railroaded through, the wording suggested was extremely biased. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Some folks love straw man arguments. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't be arguing at all, the issue has been resolved. The poll is not what decided the issue, it's the discussion. The discussion proved, without a doubt, that there is no reason to deviate from the guideline. I really hope you don't poke at strawmen until you get your way. Jay32183 22:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Come on folks: whatever each of us may feel about the issue at hand, or think about the probable outcome, we have some clear irregularities in the previous poll. It makes sense to come to an agreement on the appropriate wording and do a clean poll. Consensus gathering is also about making everyone feel like their stance was fairly considered and weighed. -- PKtm 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, I think you're misappropriating old comments. If they feel as you say, they'd comment. Rather than taking their archived statements out of context to further your own agenda, I'd recommend contacting them as I contacted the others. Anyone who feels their opinion was not properly expressed should comment, but if they choose not to, I'm afraid anything else is just a meaningless quote.
Agreed, Jay. As you, I and countless others have explained, straw polling is a secondary form of finding concensus.
People who treat the process like a petition or democratic vote and never return don't show a real desire to be "counted" in the respect you're referencing, PKTM. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not a fair representation of what I actually said, Ace. For one thing, I don't agree that polling is like a democratic vote, and have frequently elsewhere voiced my views on that. My point was that the poll was indeed irregular, and that we owe it to the consensus process, given that people have pointed that out, to engineer a poll with a clearer, less disputable outcome. That's all I said. Not everyone will (in your terms) show a "real desire to be counted" by wading into a dispute where incivility is already present. And as another editor noted above, mentioning the value of an "outsider's perspective", "can't you guys get along and collaborate?" -- PKtm 00:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Starting a poll at this point is meaningless. It's the discussion that matters and the discussion has concluded. Jay32183 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The only poll that should be done is to find out anyone was misled by the original poll. I'll be surprised if you find a single one. That said, this new supposed poll should be very simple if you want it to be effective. List the exact wording you want in the guideline. That's it. Otherwise, the results of the poll will be subject to interpretation no matter what they are and you'll just end up starting over again. No big long explanations - you can do that in the discussion section. That's what went wrong in the first poll - there was far too much explanation and detail in the choices themselves. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There appears to be agreement over the standard now amongst most people, and there have been no strong reactions to the attempted renaming, and several WikiProjects have indicated they have no objection. As such I entirely fail to see the point of yet another poll on the subject. If discussion resolves an issue, polls aren't needed. (Radiant) 12:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

New poll wording

There are sufficient calls for a new poll, that we are going to proceed with one. Once the new poll is announced, we can put the word out to all the WikiProjects to come in and participate. If, as some of the individuals in this discussion insist, there is already consensus, it will show up in the poll. If not, we need to keep talking, and/or take this to mediation or ArbCom.

The poll format will be thusly. If anyone would like changes, please be specific:

== Poll on article naming ==
On a careful review of current Wikipedia practices, it is clear that in situations where a television series has individual episodes, that in many cases, the editors who created the episode articles chose to use a consistent naming system, where a suffix of (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) was added to each article title, even when not specifically required by disambiguation rules.
As this practice has come to light, some editors have noted that this process creates names that are inconsistent with normal Wikipedia disambiguation guidelines, and as such, these editors believe that those articles with suffixes, that did not require them for disambiguation, should be changed to non-suffix versions in order to be consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions.
Other editors feel that there's nothing wrong with the practice of consistent suffixes, and that it has various advantages, such as consistency in linking, making category listings look cleaner, and providing helpful context in watchlists. They believe that the Naming Conventions guideline should be updated to indicate that this "allow consistent suffixes" method should be included as an acceptable alternative for article naming. Or in other words, per Wikipedia:Guideline, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"
Other editors feel that the "consistent suffix" method should be generally discouraged, but that it may be warranted as an exception in certain situations. For example, some series have cases where the majority of their episodes already require a suffix for disambiguation reasons, so it might make sense to also add a suffix to the minority of episodes that don't have it, for consistency's sake. Other series have gone through multiple title changes (such as Star Trek), and those editors have chosen to use a consistent (<abbreviation> episode) system, such as "(TOS episode)" "(DS9 episode)", etc.
=== Poll ===
====Question #1====
When is it appropriate for articles about episodes of a television series to use a consistent naming system, such as a consistent suffix of (<seriesname> episode) after each episode title?" As with an AfD, each editor can answer with an optional one word answer, plus a sentence or two explaining their opinion, such as: "Always - all series should use this system," "Never - suffixes should only be used when absolutely required for disambiguation", "Sometimes - it should be taken on a case by case basis, depending on the needs of that particular series."
==== Question #2====
In cases where a suffix is to be used, is it better to use (<series>), (<series> episode), or to allow other methods (such as the Star Trek abbreviation system), as long as it is consistent throughout that series?

I think that this poll system also has the advantage of allowing people to post specific opinions, rather than a simply polarized support/oppose, which will further facilitate the "discussion" nature of this issue.

Last call: Any concerns about the wording? --Elonka 18:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is not going to be another poll. Another poll is against consensus as well as judgement of two admins. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
As you are personally involved in this matter and are bias in an opinion your "judgement" actually counts for zilch as you are not independent. (PS: Please keep your edit sumamrys civil, "NO" is not civil.) Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this looks basically fine, Elonka, and I'd like to call everyone to participate, rather than continue to dismiss the need for this clarified poll. I'm looking forward to seeing this issue put to rest as soon as possible, along with the odd level of anger and contumely that it has somehow provoked. -- PKtm 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
My edit summary is fine. There needs to be a poll about whether there needs to be another poll. So far, there is absolutely no consensus on the need for another poll. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to having another poll, particularly before Josiah's argument about the discussion being the preferred way to establish consensus, not polls, is addresed. And also Ned's analysis below needs to be addressed by those arguing another poll is never-the-less justified. Before that's all addressed, I would support immediately closing any poll like this that is posted. But IF all that is addressed and consensus is established to have a new poll (that's a big IF), the wording above needs a lot of work. In particular,it needs to reflect the Wikipedia philosophy of qualifying names beyond the simple/common name only when needed for disambiguation, and for the particular qualification to depend more on what the other subjects are rather than the category each article happens to be in (WP:D). In case it comes to that, here's a specific suggestion for the wording.

====Question #1 (revised)====
Is it appropriate to qualify TV series episode article names beyond using the name of the episode when no other subject in Wikipedia uses that name, and, if so, when?
Each editor can answer with an optional one word answer, plus a sentence or two explaining their opinion, such as: "No - qualification should only be used when required for disambiguation, and, when it is required for disambiguation, how it is qualified should depend primarily on the other uses of that name", "No - qualification should only be used when required for disambiguation, and, when it is required for disambiguation, how it is qualified should be be based primarily on a consistent naming convention for each TV series, such as '(Series Name)'", "Yes - all TV series episode articles names should be qualified consistently whether qualification is needed ," "Yes, sometimes, depending on the whims of the editors of each particular series."
==== Question #2 (revised)====
In cases where a suffix is to be used, is it better to use (<series>), (<series> episode), or to allow other methods (such as the Star Trek abbreviation system), as long as it is consistent throughout that series, or, is it best to decide how to qualify a particular article name based on the other subjects that use that name independent of how other (episode) articles within that category (TV series) are qualified?

--Serge 19:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, thanks for making specific suggestions.
  • My question #1: When is it appropriate for articles about episodes of a television series to use a consistent naming system, such as a consistent suffix of (<seriesname> episode) after each episode title?
  • Your question #1: Is it appropriate to qualify TV series episode article names beyond using the name of the episode when no other subject in Wikipedia uses that name, and, if so, when?
How about this then? When is it appropriate for TV series episode articles to use a suffix (such as (<seriesname> episode)? Should this be reserved strictly for cases where another article already exists by that name (i.e., for disambiguation), or is it acceptable for some series to use regular suffixes in order to provide for a consistent naming system?"
  • My question #2: In cases where a suffix is to be used, is it better to use (<series>), (<series> episode), or to allow other methods (such as the Star Trek abbreviation system), as long as it is consistent throughout that series?
  • Your question #2: In cases where a suffix is to be used, is it better to use (<series>), (<series> episode), or to allow other methods (such as the Star Trek abbreviation system), as long as it is consistent throughout that series, or, is it best to decide how to qualify a particular article name based on the other subjects that use that name independent of how other (episode) articles within that category (TV series) are qualified?
I think that adding the extra clause, making it more of a compound question, could cause some confusion. Perhaps we want to break things out into a third question? --Elonka 06:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Now let's not try to take Serge's post as supporting another poll. That's what was attempted with Milo H Minderbinder (talk · contribs) who has since had to make himself clear that his previous statement was hypothetical.[56] This whole ordeal is getting very tiresome with people reading anything they want into everyone's statements. Like how in the world can "NO" be considered an uncivil edit summary?! It's a word! This whole thing is reverting to a very infantile level and is on a road to no good. Get consensus for a new poll or cease and desist. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that there have been sufficient calls for a new poll - if that's really the case, I'd like to see a tally of who's for and against (especially since I was listed incorrectly as someone in favor of another poll!). If a new poll ends up happening, I think the only way to do it is to actually write up proposed wordings for the different options and simply vote on those. Otherwise, after a poll is done, people will still argue over what the wording should be. Any poll should also make it explicitly clear that disambiguating when it's not necessary has no precedent in wikipedia (ships do not predisambiguate as suggested above) and conflicts with both WP:NAME and WP:DAB. Any calls for participants at various wikiprojects should also be posted at the talk pages for both of those as well. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this discussion but haven't been contributing - I just wanted to add another voice to those who believe that episode titles should be disambiguated only when necessary to avoid confusion, and that there's really no need for another poll. It seems that only two people believe that individual projects should be allowed to name articles as they seem fit; everyone else believes otherwise. It seemed like the Stargate project had the only potentially reasonable claim for an exception I've heard - the rather complicated citing template they'd developed - but that problem seems to have been worked out as well. So there's my opinion, for what it's worth. --Brian Olsen 20:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"believe that individual projects should be allowed to name articles as they seem fit" and even that is a non-existent problem, since there exists NO wikiprojects who are wanting to name articles as they seem fit (see "Exactly what is the problem?"). --`/aksha 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, why do you keep plowing through with this supposedly agreed upon pole? At the very best—for your argument—there is no consensus either way. That means you leave things as they are. You can't have consensus with this much opposition. At the worst, there's consensus not to poll. Now, so far we've seen you stall, ignore the many opinions you don't agree with and even level a baseless claim of sockpuppetry. If you can't contribute without commiting all these bad faith acts, maybe you should excuse yourself from these proceedings. At the very least, you've shown that, whatever your stake in this discussion, your bias has made you unreasonable. And no, this is not an attack. I've your userspace, and I know you're good. However, as another user commented to you, your behavior here has been disappointing. While I can't say that your "side" will be represented without you, it doesn't seem like you're really helping your case anymore, either. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is NOT enough calls for a new poll. We do NOT need a new poll. Seriously, taking this to the ArbCom? this is boarderlining trolling. We had a problem, the problem got fixed, someone who wasn't pleased with the result is now going to what...? keep stiring up discussion until things turn out in their way or until everyone else gets sick of it and leaves...leaving them to do what they want? someone tell me wikipedia does have some kind of mechanism to protect people from having to waste time on this kind of stirring-up-a-problem-when-none-exists... --`/aksha 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd hope we can avoid taking such serious action, especially since Elonka has not contributed since my comment. It's been several hours, and I'm assuming, in good faith, that my message got through to her.
However, you do make a good point. If I'm wrong and she persists, we can consider my comment her last warning, or issue one to her. From there, yes, arbitration or some other request for comment may be in other. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
uhh...just clearing up a potential misunderstanding. The arbcom comment is only in response to Elonka's "If not, we need to keep talking, and/or take this to mediation or ArbCom." --`/aksha 03:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
On the first issue, the question should be asking for a "yes"/"no", not a "yes"/"no"/"sometimes". If "sometimes" wins then we have no consensus, so the whole thing is a waste of time. This is ignoring the fact that I don't think another poll is needed on the first question, which already had a consensus the first time round. With the second question it was much closer, so although I don't want another poll, I can see how further discussion would be useful. -- Chuq 04:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, now I'm being accused of "bad faith", "trolling", "being unreasonable," "disappointing," "transparent and blatantly pathetic," and "ignoring" people simply because I didn't respond within "several hours." Folks, please, relax.  :) Sometimes I can get on Wikipedia every day, sometimes I can only get on once per day. And in the "once per day" time periods, it's very difficult to plow through dozens of messages (today it's 30 messages since my last post) of people calling me all kinds of names for "ignoring" them, and reply in detail to each and every post (especially when I'm not particularly inclined to respond to personal attacks in the first place).

To be clear about why I do not think that we have consensus:

  • The first poll was obviously a mess, with the wording being changed repeatedly during the course of the poll, and people's comments being deleted and reinstated and moved around.
  • The discussion has been a mess, with a highly uncivil and hostile environment that is not conducive to polite discussion. Further, the discussion has been dominated by a few highly hyper individuals who seem to believe that by posting multiple times per day, and immediately attacking anyone who disagrees with them, that this somehow invalidates other people's opinions.
  • There have been many personal attacks and harassment during this process. These violations of policy are not conducive to a polite and civil discussion (see User_talk:Elonka#Stalking).
  • There has been an admin here threatening on multiple occasions to use his admin tools to force through his opinion. Further, I am extremely disappointed in this admin's behavior, since not only should he be setting a standard of courtesy and civility, but if he is so interested in enforcing Wikipedia policies, he should be reminding people of WP:CIVIL, not routinely violating it himself.
  • There have been multiple individuals here who have been insisting on forcing through disruptive page moves, before an agreed-upon consensus. These actions have been further escalating the atmosphere of conflict.
  • There are multiple accounts here who have been engaging in extremely suspicious behavior that implies sockpuppetry. I have not yet had time to sit down and carefully pull together the data and file formal RFCU checks, but my specific concerns include:
  • Obvious "in concert" working between Ned Scott and Wknight94 (see the "Stalking" section of my userpage, plus other harassment by Wknight94 further down the page, plus User_talk:Ned Scott#Civility).
  • Multiple new accounts participating (in a highly uncivil manner) in this discussion, including Izzy Dot (talk · contribs) and Milo H Minderbinder (talk · contribs), both of which accounts have only been around for a few weeks, and are exhibiting similar behavior patterns to others in this discussion.

Now, voices I do respect in this discussion, even if I occasionally disagree with them, are TobyRush, Josiah Rowe, and Radiant. I look forward to further communications with them, as well as with the others in this discussion who have been participating in a civil manner, towards achieving a real consensus.

Anyone who takes the time to dig through my contribution history, or who has participated in discussions with me in the past, I hope realizes that I am a fair-minded individual who can engage in civil discussion, who can compromise, and who will abide by consensus. But I have not been seeing consensus here, I have been seeing a lot of unethical tactics, I have been seeing harassment, I have been seeing personal attacks, I have seen a poll that was thoroughly shredded in order to twist it into a biased format, and I have seen highly vocal resistance to a new and fair poll, which again reinforces to me that there's something shady going on. So I repeat again: Let's encourage civil discussion, and let's do a clean poll. If, on a level playing field, the genuine consensus is to enforce strict disambiguation rules, then not only will I abide by that consensus, I'll actually help with moving the articles. But so far, I am not seeing a civil consensus, I am seeing a noisy madhouse, with a few voices trying to have a civil discussion but getting drowned out by the roar. It is my opinion that a clean poll will help to clarify people's stands, with a "one comment per voice" method. If there's a genuine consensus, a poll will show this, and I give my word that I will abide by the decision of a clean and fair poll. --Elonka 19:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it, but I see nothing new here. You keep repeating the same points, without addressing those made in response, including those of Josiah about establishing consensus through discussion rather than polling. Yesterday, you proposed a new poll and asked for specific feedback. I gave you some. Today, you're still calling for a new poll without addressing the specific feedback I took the time to provide. You're also continuing to ignore the argument presented in the Who voted under what poll format section below, repeating your points as if this defense of the previous poll has not been presented. Pardon me but I don't see much of an effort to communicate on your part. --Serge 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Loads of false statements in here, Elonka. I'm not even going to bother enumerating them, including the ones involving me - they're not even worth the effort. You're wasting everyone's valuable time. Get consensus for a new poll before you waste any more. You've whipped everyone up into a frenzy only to turn around and call the environment a "madhouse". Stop disrupting. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Remain civil please. - Elonka makes lots of valid points (Well.. there allv alid actually tbh.) Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know you think that - you're the only person on her side in this "madhouse". I think I was just called a sockpuppet which is a new one - but I'm sure it was said in the most civil way possible. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, this is just plain ugly now, Wknight. Accusing someone of disruption is a pretty drastic step. And before you jump to a conclusion: I don't think I'm even in agreement with Elonka's position on episode titling. But what I am in agreement with is that this has degenerated enormously. Elonka's proposal above is actually calm, civil, and constructive, simply asking for a clean poll, and stating that she'll accept the outcome. I'm mystified as to why there should be such anger and personal attacks associated with a truly minor issue. As I suggested above, have another poll, cleanly, and then, by god, let's move on. -- PKtm 19:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
There is one severe problem that makes all of Elonka's points completely irrelevant. Her entire argument for pre-emptive disambiguation is based on a misunderstanding of the term "common sense exception". In order for a common sense exception to be made you must present a special case. No special case has been presented. In fact, a lot of this discussion has gone into showing that no tv series is any different from another or that no tv episode articles are any different from any other Wikipedia article. Saying the polling was inaccurate is a straw man, saying people were uncivil is arguing ad hominem. Neither of those things are to be used in any argument ever. That is why the discussion is over and moving articles has begun. Jay32183 20:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Matthew, please... Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, I agree with Serge, Jay and Wiknight. Your proposal of a new poll was clearly opposed, yet you moved forth as if it had been lauded. This is just one of many actions which worry us. We're not attacking you, we're just asking that you be as reasonable with us as you'd want us to be with you. "Do onto others". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

PK, Elonka has, among other things, ignored the clear opposition coming from those around here. Also, voting is evil. Just a one concern with putting so much faith in a poll: sockpuppetry. Yeah, folks. It's been mentioned already, but let me be perfectly clear. Unregistered users, new users, pretty much anyone can "vote". We can't put too much faith in such an easily manipulated forma. Plus, how much say should those who just add their names to the poll and never return have? Lack of comment shows a lack of concern. If you don't care enough to comment, why even voice any opinion? And no, I don't mean once a day. I, myself, have not been very active, but I'm trying. The people I contacted whose "votes" could have been misappropriated aren't here complaining. Simply put, they don't seem to care. Another issue is how polling affects discussion. If there's another poll, there should be another discussion. That's policy. The discussion is the key to finding true consensus. Polls are a way of "testing the waters". And, as the many still active, subjects, comments and recent archival will show, another discussion would really put people off. I'm sorry, but this isn't like the election fraud; no one's being cheated out of their say. It's like a great debate; talk's what counts, a clear consensus is found, and a few people don't feel strongly either way. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I think the comments about ignoring other's point of view have nothing to do with taking time to reply, but posting a reply that doesn't address the other side at all. When multiple people say they have objections, followed by a response like "since there have been no objections..." that sure seems like ignoring. And what has been disruptive about moving articles so far? It seems like it has gone very smoothly and I haven't seen any objections from the various TV shows. This is a guideline, if a few people want to change it, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be followed in its current state during that discussion. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If a new poll is to be made, then I insist that we ask an additional question: Who would win in a fight, Spider-Man or Wolverine? -- Ned Scott 06:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wolverine, definitely. But Spidey would have better jokes before he got skewered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I second that. After all, if we're not allowed to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, why bother voting for him? --`/aksha 07:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed my mind

OK, after giving this some thought, I've changed my mind: with a few caveats, I will support a new poll, in the interests of clearing the air. I don't really think it's necessary — I think that the discussion has already established a consensus to avoid preemptive disambiguation — but I do agree that the tone of the discussion here has seriously deteriorated, and if a new poll is what it takes to calm things down I would rather have that than continued mudslinging. If other editors agree, we should try to find a clear, neutrally worded poll, and carefully follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Straw polls.

As for those caveats, I just want us to remember that guidelines are not established by polls, but by discussion-based consensus. Elonka is correct that frequency of posting is not important — however, arguments and reason are. It would be good for editors to boil their arguments down to the key points, and state them clearly. The consensus will be based not merely on the number of votes, but on the quality of the arguments used and how widespread support for those arguments is.

I know that holding a new poll will be tedious and may feel like a waste of time, but surely this ongoing debate is a bigger waste of time. Ideally, we would discuss rather than vote, but the discussion here has deteriorated so much that a vote may actually help. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

An afterthought: perhaps the poll could be on whether the previous discussion adequately established a consensus in favor of the current guideline? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Given the apparent difficulty in establishing new poll wording anyway, this suggestion seems reasonable. Elonka, if the new poll is simply: Did the last poll adequately establish a consensus in favor of the current guideline?, and the agree/support votes are in the majority, would you agree to stop calling for another poll? --Serge 23:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No, because I think that would be too complicated a matter for third-party editors to really make an informed decision on. The first poll was a mess, let's just bury it and move on. Let's have a new poll, started clean, that allows for "opinion" polling. Not a polarized "vote for or against" poll, but a more open-ended "When is it appropriate" kind of question to ensure that we can get the maximum number of opinions from as many editors as possible. --Elonka 00:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
And exactly who is going to vote in the new poll who hasn't already participiated in this discussion? I'd like to point out that between the two of us, we've advertised this discussion on village pump, the disambiguation policy talk page, the main naming conventions talk page, and 4 wikiprojects. Given all of that, it's more than safe to say everyone who cares either is here now or has been here.
I still don't agree with another vote, i see it just as "stirring up more debate" for something that's been more than settled. But if it calms things down here, then i'm not going to bother oppossing it.
Why don't we just add a third "I believe consensus has already been established here to disambiguate only when needed" option to the two existing "always disambiguate" and "disambiguate only when necessary" options? --`/aksha 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I found plenty of places that a poll can be announced, that haven't been covered yet. But I don't want to post announcements there, until we have agreed upon new wording. I see that WKnight94, despite his claim today that we don't need a new poll, went around today posting dozens of messages to people's talkpages, telling them to come back and restate their opinion, even though we haven't agreed on final poll wording. Please, this situation is confusing enough. Let's agree on wording of a new poll first, and then invite people, okay? --Elonka 06:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
He's completely free to do that. I even offered to do the same thing a few days ago. There is no need to poll again, and I for one will not agree to even have a new poll, let alone the wording. (that is to say, if you want to make one, go ahead, but I do not agree that we need one) Elonka, your next step in this matter is ArbCom, not a new poll. You will only get the same results as last time. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to speak for Wknight94, but I believe that his intention was to find out whether anyone was in fact misrepresented in the previous poll. If everyone who participated in the old poll confirms their vote, is a new poll still necessary? There was confusion in the old poll, yes — but if everyone eventually got to express their opinions, does it matter that there were a few procedural glitches? The purpose of a poll is to gauge opinion. I feel like that's been done. I'm still willing to support another poll if the need for it is shown, but based on the early results from Wknight94's canvassing, I'm not sure that it is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Correct, there are several other places that I would like to announce a poll, but I am not going to do so until after we've agreed on wording. Things are already confusing enough. --Elonka 06:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Move for Smothered (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode) requested

I've submitted withdrawn the following move request at WP:RM:

Smothered (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode) → Smothered — Per WP:TV-NC. Please vote at Talk:Smothered (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode)

--Serge 01:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Smothered redirect, like smother, to Asphyxia? What is the rule on that kind of thing? - Peregrinefisher 01:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
What Peregrine said. Also, please do not jump in and be moving articles around, since this discussion is not concluded. Moving articles at this point is just going to cause further confusion. --Elonka 01:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It is concluded, and they're already moving pages, genius. Give the fuck up! You lost. Game o. Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 01:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Izzy, your comments are not appropriate at all, and I shouldn't have to tell you that. A lot of us are feeling frustrated at some people, but that's no excuse to be rude. -- Ned Scott 07:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No one is confused about anything, though some are disappointed and can't seem to let it go. --Serge 02:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Smothered did redirect to asphyxia. I changed it to redirect to the L&O episode article instead. There were no links pointing to it. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We can't have the past tense version of every word redirect to the article about that concept, especially when we have a legitimate enyclopedic use of that word (the name of a TV episode). For example, Scared is about the punk rock album of that title; it does not redirect to Fear. --Serge 02:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Now, if we may focus, I have something relevant to say. Serge, even though this is not a dictionary, don't you think it'd better to for searchers if stuff like "Scared" and "smothered" redirect to articles discribing the concepts? I mean, I really find those dab messages at the top of pagings gawdy. It'd be nice, linkless or not, if words redirected to decriptions rather than things named after them. I can't fucking STAND stuff like the "Friends" situation! Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 02:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Izzy, I think it was impolitic for Elonka to accuse you of being a sockpuppet, but I think your tone here is starting to get a little too hostile.
Elonka, if you really think you have a valid rationale for your viewpoint, you should post a detailed rebuttal to Josiah's summary in the section titled "Reasons for exceptions" above. If you want to be taken seriously and not disregarded as a "sore loser" you should start making compelling arguments, rather than making unfounded accusations and complaining about bureaucratic matters. Nohat 02:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Nohat - agreed. --Serge 02:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Izzy Dot, I see your point. I'd have a problem with "Smother", "Fear" or even "Scare" being names of articles about something other than the concepts, but the past tense, plural, etc. forms of these words? No, I don't have an issue with them being used for articles about books, films, TV shows and episodes, or whatever has that as its name. --Serge 02:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Nohat, you're right. You guys are okay.

Serge, I really disagree, but if that's the way things are, I'm not going to pull an Elonka. Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 02:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

To Elonka - a lot of articles have already been moved over the last few days. You can take a look at the list futher up the page if you want. I believe you will find there is no evidence what so ever that those moves have been causing any confusion or disruption to editors on those articles. In fact, regular editors on those TV series have actually been helping in some cases.

With regards to this move - no, there's no point putting it to requested moves. Just tag it for speedy deletion. A part of the criteria under "housekeeping" allows for the deletion of redirect pages so proper page moves can be made (as oppossed to the copy and paste method). The template you should use is {{db-move|Page to be moved}}. --`/aksha 03:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the speedy move request, I'm withdrawing I've withdrawn my requested move. --Serge 06:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The move was done through a speedy delete of the old Smothered redirect page. --Serge 15:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The way it is disambig'ed now seems like a reasonable compromise. If there were other episodes from other series named similarly, we'd probably have to make a separate disambig page. (Radiant) 12:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • nods* yeah...i've had to do a few (making disambiguation pages) over the last few days because it seems like there're a few names which keep getting used by TV series as episode names. --`/aksha 12:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Who voted under what poll format

The last hour I've stepped through each edit difference during the poll. I've made the following notes to show who voted during what "version" of the poll. The poll format did get changed, but I only found three different formats that contained votes.

So lets start:


Argash sets up RfC with the basic concept, pre-poll format [57]

Izzy Dot formats a poll based on Argash's RfC summary and suggestions [58]

Note: struck out editors are those who confirmed their vote in a later format. Editors in italics confirmed their vote later on in discussion, etc under the 2nd format.

Votes (1st format)

  1. Elonka
  2. MatthewFenton
  3. Shannernanner
  4. SigmaEpsilon
  5. Marky1981
  6. Wknight94
  7. EEMeltonIV
  8. Mnemeson
  9. Josiah Rowe
  10. Opark 77
  11. Nohat
  12. Khaosworks

Izzy Dot removes "opposes" in all three sections [59]

Votes (1st format, continued, no "formating" has been changed)

  1. Thedemonhog
  2. Argash
  3. Izzy Dot

I changed the bullets to numbers (* -> #) for easy counting [60]

I make the first major change to the poll since it started (same day). [61] In this change the two issues become separated. What people supported previously is still "true", however some of the previous editors may need to list themselves under the new oppose section of "Disambig only when necessary". I then note this in the discussion.

Votes (2nd format)

  1. EnsRedShirt
  2. Ned Scott
  3. ThuranX
  4. Ace Class Shadow
  5. Jay32183
  6. Xornok
  7. SigmaEpsilon
  8. Izhmal
  9. Nihonjoe
  10. Peregrinefisher
  11. Wikipedical
  12. Chuq

Izzy Dot makes second poll change [62]

No votes take place in this format

I make third poll change, reverting back to 2nd format [63]

Note: I restore Matthew's oppose of "Disambig only when necessary", which was marked as an oppose before the oppose section was created. [64]

Votes (2nd format, continued)

  1. Percy Snoodle

Shannernanner makes fourth poll change, adds oppose sections to the section issue options [65].

Votes (3rd format)

  1. Harris000
  2. Ac1983fan
  3. Nohat
  4. Thedemonhog
  5. Josiah Rowe
  6. Yaksha

I revert back to 2nd format [66]

Votes (2nd format, continued)

  1. Nohat
  2. Josiah Rowe
  3. Shannernanner
  4. Jay32183 (vote on second issue)


Elonka makes poll change, format and re-definition of sections similar to the 1st version [67] [68]

No votes take place with this format

Note: Jay32183 did strike a comment because of the change, but un-struck it after it was reverted)

I revert back to 2nd format [69]

Votes (2nd format, continued)

  1. Argash
  2. EEMeltonIV
  3. Elonka
  4. Oggleboppiter
  5. Anþony
  6. JHunterJ
  7. AnemoneProjectors
  8. Serge Issakov
  9. SergeantBolt
  10. GhostStalker
  11. BlueSquadronRaven
  12. Mickiscoole

Now lets update those lists excluding anyone who later made their vote clear.

1st format

  1. Marky1981
  2. Mnemeson
  3. Opark 77
  4. Khaosworks

2nd format

  1. EnsRedShirt
  2. Ned Scott
  3. ThuranX
  4. Ace Class Shadow
  5. Jay32183
  6. Xornok
  7. SigmaEpsilon
  8. Izhmal
  9. Nihonjoe
  10. Peregrinefisher
  11. Wikipedical
  12. Chuq
  13. Nohat
  14. Josiah Rowe
  15. Shannernanner
  16. Argash
  17. EEMeltonIV
  18. Oggleboppiter
  19. Anþony
  20. JHunterJ
  21. AnemoneProjectors
  22. Serge Issakov
  23. SergeantBolt
  24. GhostStalker
  25. BlueSquadronRaven
  26. Mickiscoole
  27. Yaksha
  28. Elonka
  29. MatthewFenton
  30. Wknight94
  31. Percy Snoodle

3rd format

  1. Harris000
  2. Ac1983fan
  3. Thedemonhog

So..

These editors have not updated or "confirmed" their vote:

  1. Harris000
  2. Ac1983fan
  3. Thedemonhog
  4. Marky1981
  5. Mnemeson
  6. Opark 77
  7. Khaosworks

Now lets see who voted support for "disambig only when necessary" (Regardless of format, we know they supported this. We only don't know what they supported for Disambig title):

  1. Harris000
  2. Ac1983fan
  3. Thedemonhog
  4. Khaosworks

The only editors who didn't vote under the 2nd format and didn't note support for "disambig only when necessary" were:

  1. Marky1981
  2. Mnemeson
  3. Opark 77

This much we know is true from the poll. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad it was you and not me who had to do that! -- Chuq 07:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Very nice - and yet I bet it falls on deaf ears. And of course it's ironic to see that Elonka is one of the editors who altered the poll and is now trying to use poll-altering as a reason for appeal. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what is the problem?

At this point, i completely fail to see what the problem is.

We agree to keep the guildline as it is.

Guildlines, by definition (and common sense), are followed by default.

A lot of article moving has already happened, with no evidence of any disruption or damage caused.

We have agreed to leave the format of disambiguation as is. There is still debate about this, however people have expressed that they don't feel it's a very important issue.

There is still debate about what to do with wikiprojects that decide to disambiguate.

  • Project stargate and project mortal kombat have given a go ahead to article moving.
  • Project buffyverse and project star trek have not responded.
  • Project lost has not decided to disambiguate (no project-wide consensus, as shown by this and this)
  • Project 4400 has not decided to disambiguate (no project-wide consensus, as shwon by this)

In other words, we're arguing about a "what if" problem. Why don't we leave debating about this problem when there actually exists a wikiproject who does have project-wide consensus to disambiguate?

So unless someone would like to enlighten me on exactly what our problem is, can we just focus on...actually getting things done? As in get articles moved and deal with problems when they actually show up. --`/aksha 06:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The comments about the Lost and The 4400 projects are interesting - "have not decided to disambiguate" - that's the point of this decision, it isn't up to them to decide - they are part of WikiProject Television, which has decided to go with standard Wikipedia naming conventions ("do not disambiguate unless necessary"). Why don't we just start moving the Lost and 4400 episodes and be done with it? -- Chuq 07:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, i believe it isn't up to them to decide either. But the point is, the issue we're arguing about it "whether it is up to wikiprojects to decide or not". And i'm just pointing out that the issue is non-existent, since there are no wikiprojects who have "decided" to do otherwise. So why bother making such a fuss over the hypothetical situation that the lost or 4400 project may "decide" project-wide to not follow these guildlines?
Yes, they need to be moved. Should the projects in future agree to not follow naming guidelines, i'd assume another round of discussions/debate/arguments will occur here. But that's currently not the case. --`/aksha 08:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In general, consensus among a Wikiproject cannot trump consensus among Wikipedia as a whole. But since there doesn't appear to be any attempt to do so anyway, the point is pretty much moot. (Radiant) 12:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

using (episode)

I just started to fix the Frasier episode names - adding redirects or fixing disambigs as needed - and found The Good Son as a good example of why I suggested "(episode)" as a disambiguator rather than the show name. Not trying to change the standard now - just pointing out an example. -- Chuq 08:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

But what happens, if another series also has an episode called "The Good Son"? Wouldn't it be easier then to have "The Good Son (Frasier)" and "The Good Son (some other series)"? Rather than "The Good Son (episode, Frasier)" and "The Good Son (episode, some other series). --`/aksha 08:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, obviously that would be The Good Son (Frasier episode) and The Good Son (Other-series episode). Just like as is done in Author! Author! - although you will notice the (Seriesname)/(Seriesname episode) difference of convention here. I have also found some examples with some film names - we have Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Frequency (film), Bedazzled (2000 film) and Gossip (2000 Swedish film) named as such - we only add as much detail as is needed to disambiguate it from other items with the same name, in these examples, nothing for the first title, Frequency, Bedazzled (1967 film) and Gossip (2000 American film). We don't use Bedazzled (2000) or Gossip (Swedish) as they are undescriptive. I hope I don't look like I am trying to undo an entire page of discussion but these examples demonstrate what I have been thinking the entire time! -- Chuq 09:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
hmm, i sort of see your point now. Personally, i don't have much of an opinion on how to disambiguate. Seeing everything (all episodes) using the same format would be nice, but i have a feeling it'll end up taking far more effort getting everyone to agree than it's worth. --`/aksha 09:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think what you're running into is the reality that how any given page is disambiguated - that is, how you determine what should go into the parenthesis - should depend much more on what the other uses of that particular name are, and much less on how other other pages within that category happen to be disambiguated. But I think most people look at the problem from the other perspective - trying to make every page within a category disambiguated consistently as being the higher priority. The extreme of that view is exemplified by U.S. cities - preferring consistency in the disambiguated naming format (Cityname, Statename) even for articles that don't need to be disambiguated (e.g., San Francisco, California). --Serge 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it comes down to the fact that the ultimate purpose of disambiguation is to differentiate between two things which is actually ambiguous. Although i have to admit trying to get everything to look nice is very tempting =) --`/aksha 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly correct. We just have to remember the priorities. The first priority is to use the most common name. If we can't because that name conflicts with another use of the same name, the second priority is distinguishing from the other uses. Finally, if we can distinguish in a manner that is consistent with the way other articles in the same category are disambiguated, that's a nice bonus. But we should not sacrifice the first two priorities in order to meet the third. --Serge 06:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent point, I agree. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

All TV articles should be named this way?

I look through categories regularly at WP but am still learning many things about editing properly. In this specific case, I am looking through tv-related categories and I see many more articles without "(TV series)" than with. Does this mean we should move every appropriate article to a new name containing "TV series" or other appropriate title suffix or only do so under specific circumstances? -- CobraWiki (jabber|stuff) 22:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

TV series is added after a series if it shares its name with another Wikipedia article. Generally on Wikipedia articles are given the simplest name possible. Jay32183 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Category:Big Love episodes is a good example of a category of episode articles where some are disambiguated and some are not. --`/aksha 02:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
CobraWiki is asking about the actual TV series episodes themselves, like Lost (TV series), Torchwood, etc. and to that I have to say NO WAY. 21 Jump Street, Crossing Jordan and The Chaser's War on Everything are NOT going to get confused with anything else, so they don't need disambiguation. If such a decision got consensus then you might as well split anything TV related off to another site and delete all future TV related articles from Wikipedia. (CobraWiki, I know you were just questioning "why not" and not saying that "we should" so I'm not targetting this aggravation at you - but I'm just making sure other people don't get any ideas!) -- Chuq 04:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No offence taken, Chuq. Thanks all for the explanations. Looking at it from a "simple is better" point does make perfect sense. -- CobraWiki (jabber|stuff) 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)/Archive_4&oldid=1079930314"