Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives Archive 1 - June 2003 – August 2004 Archive 2 - August 2004 – September 2005 Archive 3 - September 2005 – September 2006 Archive 4 - October – November 2006 Archive 5 - November 2006 Archive 6 - November 2006 Archive 7 - November – December 2006 Archive 8 - December 2006 – January 2007

Contents 1 Summary of discussion 1.1 Additional comments 1.1.1 No exceptions clarification 2 Answer this question 3 Disputed tag 4 No disambiguation unless necessary 5 Strawpoll: Is Elonka filibustering? 6 Programs needing to be moved 7 Moving lost articles 7.1 Requested move 7.1.1 Survey 7.1.2 Discussion 8 Mediation anyone? 9 Consensus 101 9.1 Irony 101 10 Request for comment 10.1 Poll again? 11 Moving forward 11.1 Proposed poll wording 12 Notification of move request survey: Lost (TV series) -> Lost 13 Maternity Leave (Lost) move request 14 Requests for a new poll 14.1 No need for a new poll 15 Category renaming 15.1 Mediation discussion 16 History has a tendency to repeat itself

Summary of discussion

I've spent the last several hours pulling this together. It is a summary of all opinions that have been offered in this debate, since the RfC started on October 30. The only names here are those who actually came in to the debate and said something about the naming issue, even if it was just a few words. If all they did was pop in to say "Support" or "Oppose" (no matter which "side" they were on), I have not included them on this list. If all they did was toss in unrelated comment, such as only about the poll, but not what their stand was on the issue in the poll, I have not included their names here either. When/if sockpuppets are confirmed later, their opinions can be crossed out.

Note: There are a lot of diffs here. If anyone feels that a particular editor's position was misrepresented, feel free to update it, and include a supporting diff. And if I missed anyone, please assume good faith. There's a lot of detail here, and I'm human, and I may have missed something, or gotten a diff tangled up. In such cases, please feel free to add/correct things as necessary. --Elonka 06:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ace Class Shadow (talk • contribs) - Only disambiguate when necessary, and then include the year. [1]

• AnemoneProjectors (talk • contribs) - Use disambiguation only when necessary [2]

• Anþony (talk • contribs) - Minimum disambiguation required, no exceptions [3][4]

• Argash (talk • contribs) - Suffix adds needed context to the article, and is the preferred method. Redirects are a fallback position.[5][6][7][8][9]

• BlueSquadronRaven (talk • contribs) - Don't disambiguate needlessly [10]

• Brian Olsen (talk • contribs) - Disambiguate only when necessary [11]

• Cburnett (talk • contribs) - Disambiguate as necessary, but make sure to include lots of redirects[12]

• Chuq (talk • contribs) - Disambiguate only when necessary. All series should use the same format. [13][14]
• Elonka (talk • contribs) - Flexibility.[15] For certain series, suffixes make sense. Let the WikiProjects decide what works best for their own sphere of influence.[16][17]. [18].

• EnsRedShirt (talk • contribs) - All television episodes should use a single unified format, which includes the series name [19][20][21]

• Jay32183 (talk • contribs) - Only disambiguate when necessary. Keep article titles simple. No exceptions. [22][23]. [24]

• JHunterJ (talk • contribs) - disambiguation and article titles are not group mechanisms [25]

• Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) - Only disambiguate when necessary [26]. Consistency should not be "fetishized". [27][28]. Okay to "vary by series", preferably as a fallback position if no consensus emerges [29][30]Star Trek articles are "broken" [31]

• Khaosworks (talk • contribs) - Don't disambiguate needlessly[32]

• Marky1981 (talk • contribs) - Appending "episode" makes things more clear [33]

• MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) - Suffixes are a case of article naming, not just disambiguation [34]

• Milo H Minderbinder (talk • contribs) - Disambiguate only when necessary [35]
  • Note: Account created October 20, 2006
• Mnemeson (talk • contribs) - Agrees with Marky1981 (append "episode" to articles)

• Ned Scott (talk • contribs) - Disambiguation only when needed. Flexibility is good, but neither Lost nor Star Trek have valid exemptions. [36][37]

• Netoholic (talk • contribs) - Let WikiProjects decide [38]

• Nihonjoe (talk • contribs) - Disambiguate only when necessary [39]

• Nohat (talk • contribs) - Preemptive disambiguation is always a bad idea.[40]

• Percy Snoodle (talk • contribs) - support existing dab rules, which should be consistently applied[41]

• Peregrinefisher (talk • contribs) - Set a threshhold such that if a certain number of articles in a series are already disambiguated, the rest should get suffixes as well [42]

• Radiant! (talk • contribs) - Disambiguate only when necessary. Exceptions are allowed, but do not need to be defined in the guideline. [43]

• Riverbend (talk • contribs) - Consistent suffixes, and a series should be able to choose whether or not to make that exception to the general guidelines [44]

• Rrfayette (talk • contribs) - "Disambiguate only when needed", but allow exceptions [45]

• Serge Issakov (talk • contribs) - Disambiguate only when required [46][47]

• Shannernanner (talk • contribs) - Only use disambiguation when it is needed [48].

• SigmaEpsilon (talk • contribs) - single, unified format for all episode titles. [49]

• Steve block (talk • contribs) - Only disambiguate when necessary [50]

• Tango (talk • contribs) - Stargate articles use suffixes for consistency [51][52][53]

• TobyRush (talk • contribs) - A universal standard is good. Agree with Josiah Rowe and Nohat [54] and supports Cburnett's suggestion [55] Justifiable exceptions to guidelines are allowed, and should be debated by the individual shows involved [56]

• Wikipedical (talk • contribs) - Disambiguate only when necessary.

• Wknight94 (talk • contribs) - Enforce the "disambiguation only when needed" guideline as policy, no exceptions [57][58]

• Yaksha (talk • contribs) - Only disambiguate when necessary, although would possibly consider an exception appropriate if the vast majority of episodes in a series already require it [59]. WikiProjects have no special authority. [60]

Additional comments

If you have any comments about the above summary, please add it in this section. --Elonka 06:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I appear on the list so you must be aware of my comments. So I must ask, why haven't you answered my question clearly marked "Answer this question". It's the only thing that actually matters in resolving this issue. Jay32183 06:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've also noticed you've misrepresented what I said. I did not say no exceptions ever. I actually pointed out that you have not presented a reason that deserves an exception. Which is why I made the section #Answer this question where I call for you to present a case that would deserve an exception. Basically, exceptions are made on the special needs of the articles not the special needs of the editors. Jay32183 08:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your summary proves only two things Elonka. The first is that we have had more than enough people participating in this discussion. The second is that there's a clear supermajority to disambiguate only when needed. The only point of concern is exceptions - which some people say to allow and others say to not allow.

But as i've already pointed out, it's a non-existent problem. We have no wikiprojects wanting exceptions. Why bother argueing over a hypothetical then? And i forgot to ask, what is the purpose of this Elonka? --`/aksha 06:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Elonka, thank you for providing that summary. I'll assume good faith and accept that it's by and large a fair representation of the views stated on this page. The obvious conclusion from this summary is that whether or not we have a true consensus, there is certainly a supermajority in favor of "disambiguate only when necessary". At this point it might be useful to point out this quotation from Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority:

In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what [consensus] does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it.

By that definition, this looks like a consensus to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I am inclined to agree that this constitutes a consensus (which, by definition, need not be unanimity). More importantly, we have an existing guideline (to disambiguate only when necessary) which can be assumed to have prior consensual support, and there certainly is no consensus to overturn that, or to add Elonka's exception clause. (Radiant) 09:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several other people who just added their name next to support or oppose in the first poll without further explanation. I'm not sure why they are being ignored in the list above so I'll provide it here. Please move it up next to the other list. You can qualify it some way if you like but I usually interpret such votes to mean "per everyone above" so I don't see why they should count less:

Support without further explanation:

• Izzy Dot (talk • contribs) Elonka is alleging sockpuppetry but that's unproven. There must be a colorful diff in there somewhere for this user as well.
  • Note: Account created October 21, 2006
• Thedemonhog (talk • contribs)
• ThuranX (talk • contribs)
• Izhmal (talk • contribs)
  • Note: Account created October 21, 2006
• Harris000 (talk • contribs)
• Ac1983fan (talk • contribs)
• GhostStalker (talk • contribs)

Oppose without further explanation:

• EEMeltonIV (talk • contribs)
• Oggleboppiter (talk • contribs)
  • Note: Account created October 26, 2006
    • In further explanation (harhar) I would like to say that I never believed that polls were essential to Wikipedia. But they do help keep it from being a dictatorship of evil. Though I can not speak for him, I think it is in ol' Jimmy's best interest to keep Wikipedia a democracy. Opinions change people, if they didn't then presidents in countries like the US wouldn't swap between Democrats and Republicans every few years. Although conformity rocks, and following the same old rules is a good way to avoid confusion, sometimes it is easier and more efficient to just go with what feels natural. Plus polls are just real cool and stuff. Oh, and I also find it offensive that it says when my account was created. I take that as a personal attack to my opinion. I'd understand if I created this account a week ago and never posted anywhere else, but seriously. Cmon. CMON! Oggleboppiter 02:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • There's no need for you to speak for Jimbo: he's spoken on the subject of Wikipedia as a democracy himself. Specifically, he's said, "it's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy." This was subsequently incorporated into policy here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
        • And consensus on opinion matters is reached by using polls. We aren't areguing about facts. We aren't voting on the truth. What we should do can't be proven. This isn't an 'experiment' of democrazy, but whether anyone likes it or not, polls are democracy in action. If my main man Jimbo didn't want polls, he'd make all of Wikipedia by himself. Also note that all Wiki Policy runs on common sense. Common, which is a fancy word for majority. OR the other way around, I forget. But if the majority of everybodys sense on this opinion says to do it one way, then that is more likely than not the way to do it. And if not, I won't complain one bit if Mr. Wales waltzes in right now to delete this whole argument and do it his way. I understand this is kind of jumbled. But quite frankly, I don't give a damn. I'm here to give my opinion on the matter, not present it on a silver platter. Oggleboppiter 03:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, thanks for your opinion — it is appreciated, even if I disagree with it. However, with regard to how things are decided on Wikipedia, it's really not the intention that consensus is determined by polls. See Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus vs. supermajority, which says, "Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus." Consensus is different from majoritarian voting — incidentally, if this were based on majoritarian voting, the discussion would now be over, and the existing guideline would have been "voted in". I happen to think that it has been supported by a consensus of editors participating in this discussion, but that's not a unanimous view, sadly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for including these. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No exceptions clarification

I'd like to clarify what I meant and what Elonka summarized briefly as "no exceptions". I don't think we should tolerate any exceptions to the guideline in the long run. If there is some show or aticle in general that doesn't fit into the guidelines and strict enforcement would lead to an article or articles of lesser quality, then in the short term it may make sense to ignore the guidelines and do what seems reasonable instead. However, once this hypothetical exception is allowed, it is important to examine the particulars of the situation, form a generalized solution, and establish specific criteria to handle similar cases in the future. In that way, the guideline changes to accomodate the situation and obviates the need for an exception (and for future bickering about the same question over and over).

Applied to our current situation, it has not been shown that there is anything particular or peculiar about Lost, Star Trek, or the others not covered under the current guideline. (#Answer this question) Consequently, if allowed, it would be flatly impossible to form a generalized solution for the guideline. New series would follow one pattern or the other based on the whim of whoever gets there first. It is that sort of long-term exception to which I am opposed, on what you might call "religious grounds". -Anþony 02:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer this question

This is directed at those who do not want to follow the standard "disambiguate only when necessary". So far it has been ignored every time I have asked this question. What makes the articles on "Lost" or "Star Trek" special compared to other TV series on Wikipedia? What makes a TV episode article special compared to any other Wikipedia article? If these questions cannot not be answered, then you have no point. You cannot call for a "common sense exception" when no special case exists. Please also note that the question is not "What makes the editors special?" The fact that the editors have handled the articles differently does not make the article special. Jay32183 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question. Of course, no one is answering it. I've posted a slightly modified version at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Answer this question where we have a similar situation, except there those who favor predisambiguation are in the majority. --Serge 18:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Completely ignored again. This is the only question that matters and those calling for an exception won't answer it. Therefore, this cannot be anything but a filibuster. Jay32183 06:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I've already answered this several places, but to repeat: I believe that WikiProjects should have the right to decide on guidelines for their sphere of influence. This includes naming issues. I also believe that it makes sense that if a series already has the majority of its episodes with suffixes, to add the suffixes to the minority of other episodes, to keep everything consistent. --Elonka 10:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And i think it's been explained in many places by many people why WikiProjects don't have special power.

Not to mention, the fact that there currently exists no WikiProjects who wish to exercise such a right, should it exist (which it currently doesn't.) --`/aksha 13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You have not addressed what makes the shows themselves different, unique, or somehow exempt from the guideline as it is. If the WikiProjects have a valid and well-reasoned argument for their decision, they should be able to present it here and have it ratified by the wider consensus. Otherwise, the series should adhere to the guidelines created for that purpose. -Anþony 02:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That didn't answer my question at all. In fact, you answered the question I specifically said was irrelevant. Jay32183 03:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProjects are points of collaboration, like "super talk pages", and are not their own closed system. I've said this many times in other discussions, WikiProjects are points of collaboration first and groups of people second. Also, by just editing an article related to the scope of a WikiProject, that technically makes that person apart of that collaborative effort, which is all the WikiProject is. It's just a form of organization, NOT a form of government or authority. Being in a WikiProject doesn't give one any more or less of a right to have a say in those articles. It would be a very bad thing for WikiProjects to have such authority. That being said, a WikiProject can be used to organize discussion to form consensus, but that would be that discussion that caused the change, with the WikiProject being the tool to reach that consensus. (also, as others have said, WP:LOST has not had such a discussion where it formed it's own consensus on this issue, in the first place). -- Ned Scott 03:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• The main argument against the suggestion that WikiProjects should have jurisdiction over the articles in their scope, is the fact that the entire concept of "jurisdiction" doesn't exist on Wikipedia, since everyone can edit everything and WP:NOT a bureaucracy. This may not be the most practical approach but it is the most wiki. (Radiant) 16:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• My opinion is that if a WikiProject wants to come up with slightly different ways of handling the articles within their sphere of influence, and they are not violating any policies in doing so (note I'm saying policies, not guidelines), then I see no problem with that. Policies of course should be enforced, but guidelines are recommendations. And as Wikipedia:Guideline says, Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. For example, at the Lost WikiProject, it was decided to limit the number and type of External links that can be on an episode article. Further, it was decided that plot summaries should be limited to a certain number of words. There's also a strict rule among the Lost articles about the inclusion of speculative information, even if it's sourced. These kinds of things make sense for the Lost articles, even though they are not in strict adherence with Wikipedia's "global" guidelines. It would be a colossal waste of time if every single one of these guidelines needed to be debated both at the Lost level, and at the global level, especially because it wouldn't make sense to do that. For example, if the limit on External Links came up at a global level, of course there would be a hue and cry about limiting those links, because it wouldn't make sense to put strict limits on them in all articles, it's just something that the Lost system needs, which is why that kind of thing is best debated at the lowest level necessary (in this case, the WikiProject), rather than in the global guideline arena. A key benefit of a WikiProject, is to bring together the editors that are most familiar with a specific set of subject matter, so that they can coordinate work on the articles related to that subject, and come up with a consistent look and feel and set of rules. --Elonka 02:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Colossal waste of time" is a great way to describe this situation you've created, Elonka. As far as I'm concerned, this whole thing is a perfect example of why guidelines should be followed. If Lost followed the guidelines, there's no need to debate this at either level. At all. When little groups think they need an exception, lots of time is wasted on something that would have no benefit if it passed. I'd like to see all TV shows follow the guideline - we can either have this discussion once at the top level, or have this discussion many many many times at the low level (and waste orders of magnitude more time). And for the record, I'm fine with exceptions being made to the guidelines for common sense reasons. But I have yet to hear a common sense reason why Lost "needs" different naming from every other TV show. Nor why only those familiar with Lost are capable of participating in a discussion about how Lost episodes should be named. I think exceptions can and should be made, just not because a small group of editors doesn't feel like following them. --Milo H Minderbinder 02:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, if those aspects of the Lost WikiProject's guidelines came up in a broader context, I would hope that editors from the WikiProject would be invited to explain their reasoning. And if they did, that reasoning would be evaluated on its own merits, and any exceptions to general Wikipedia guidelines could be evaluated on their own merits. If the reasoning presented is strong enough, I'm sure it would convince a consensus of non-WikiProject Wikipedians that there was a good case for making that exception.

But if that larger group of Wikipedians were to reject the arguments of the WikiProject — or if the WikiProject members failed to explain their reasoning — I would hope and expect that the lesser guideline (and WikiProject guidelines are lesser than Wikipedia-wide guidelines) would be overturned. You're fond of quoting the sentence "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. But the judgement of what constitutes "common sense" and when "the occasional exception" is to be taken is up to a general consensus of Wikipedians. Such a consensus has opposed the exception in this case.

WikiProjects are merely a focus for improvement of articles in specific areas. They are not infallible. When the general community suggests that a WikiProject has erred in its guidelines, it is appropriate for the WikiProject to engage the community at large, and for both sides to listen to each other. Despite your protestations to the contrary (and the occasional descent of this debate into impatience and incivility), the argument for explicitly including exceptions has been listened to, and has been rejected. Later tonight I think I'll try to put together some suggestions for how we can go forward from here, since the current situation is obviously unsatisfactory for all parties. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Sorry for another section, guys, but this is important. TEMPT (The Elonka/Matthew/Pktm trio) claim the policy is disputed. This, I will gladly have a vote on. You can't make a claim or use a tag on the mainpage without valid reasoning. This has, as they say, gone too far and is "the last straw". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't need WP:TV-NC becoming an edit war. As long as there are around 30 edits per day to this talk page, how can we call it not disputed? I'll defer to someone else if a better reasoning is available (like the policy the tag points to is inactive) but let's not end up with 3RR threats and blocks over a tag which seems pretty accurate to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

disputed

1. Argued; not certain, agreed upon, or accepted.

A definition of disputed. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 20:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, you see, that right there would upset me. Still, I'll try to take the high road, like Ned. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, for purposes of the tag, policy dispute is defined at Wikipedia:Policy dispute. I'm not convinced that this really meets that definition, but I don't really see what that matters. After all, what does the disputed tag really mean? The guideline still stands while this discussion is going on. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Er, guys, voting on whether or not there is a dispute is oxymoronic. Let's not do that. The tag doesn't in fact do any harm for now. If we are agreed that this page is consensual, then a handful dissenters do not a dispute make; while we are still debating about this page, it is not unreasonable to claim a dispute exists. Let's just leave it in place for a few days. (Radiant) 22:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The tag is just a way to jam a foot in the door as it continues to close on this issue, and nothing more. It's painfully clear that the two or three editors who are disputing will continue to be in dispute, regardless of consensus. Just because they disagree doesn't mean they get to throw a fit about this. -- Ned Scott 00:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

By the sheer quantity of reverts, it's clear that there's a dispute. The tag should stay. --Elonka 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a dispute, but it's not on the guideline (see below). -- Ned Scott 01:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the guideline itself is not in dispute, but how we interpret exceptions to guidelines, which is not even commented on the guideline page. The dispute is taking place on the talk page, and the only change to the project page would be the inclusion of an example of exception. Why are we tagging the project page with a dispute tag? I know it's very tempting to "give in" right now, but this is no different from the other tactics that have been used. Lets not let ourselves be played like this. -- Ned Scott 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys are a riot. Here's a whole section disputing whether there is a dispute, thereby proving that there is a dispute. LOL. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The guideline isn't in dispute. I believe Elonka has even said that. Those who are opposing wish to have an "exception" to the guideline, and then have that (or some other example) exception listed. If they feel it's an exception, then wouldn't that mean that the actual guideline itself is not in dispute? There is a related dispute to this guideline in how we apply it and how we apply exemptions from it. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think i'm overdoing it by saying if just one single editor stopped claiming there was a dispute, this entire issue would be silent in a day. --`/aksha 02:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have protected the page in response to the edit war about whether or not the dispute exists. (Radiant) 08:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No disambiguation unless necessary

It's confusing and it's long standing practise. Wikipedia doesn't standardise for the sake of it, per arb-com, and it doesn't confuse readers. We only disambiguate when we have to. Steve block Talk 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant "not confusing," Steve. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Strawpoll: Is Elonka filibustering?

Poll closed. [61]. This is an inappropriate topic for a straw poll, and is making the issue too personal. Personal issues don't belong on a guideline talk page. (Radiant) 08:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, Radiant! Thank you. -- PKtm 14:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Radiant. While some people have gotten frustrated with Elonka's comments, I am grateful that someone is arguing for a more open, fair, and consistentl y transparant process. I have never taken part in this particular debate, and haven't been editing LOST articles for very long, but I just spent the last hour reading through this entire discussion and there is just way too much meanness and accusations. Elonka's statements have often been misconstrued and insulted in a hostile and unconstructive way. This whole conversation was completely unconstructive. I agree completely with Elonka's statement that this kind of nonsense scares the hell out of newer editors, it was a long time before I started editing LOST pages, because LOST folx can get so hateful about things. I agree with her that there should be a new, clean, well-advertised discussion since this seems to be a hot issue. It will provide closure and nobody can cry foul play. I was unaware of the discussion when it happened, I would like a place to give my opinion now that I know about this. Riverbend 16:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A good place to give your opinion is regarding the move request for Lost articles just below. --Serge 16:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Programs needing to be moved

Just reposting the list for everyone's convience since i'm about to achieve the top half of this talk page. --`/aksha 03:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I would prefer that people stop engaging in page moves for now. The guideline is in dispute, there is no clear consensus here at talk, and the issue is proceeding to mediation. Further page moves at this time are just going to escalate tension, so please, let's just leave things alone for now. --Elonka 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• stargate - Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate (Project informed on 10/11)done
  
• 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 just waiting for a speey deletion request to come through, otherwise done
  
• some mortal combat series - Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat (done)
  
• 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 (done)
  
• Torchwood (false alarm, the disambiguation was actually needed on torchwood episodes)
  
• Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series)
  
• Frasierfalse call
  
• Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) done
  
• InuYasha done
  
• House (TV series) done
  
• That '70s Show admin assitance needed for Hyde's Father (That '70s Show episode) otherwise done
  
• M*A*S*H existing episodes done
  
• Naruto seems to have an issue over what the actual titles should be for episodes that haven't aired in North America (done)
  
• The O.C.done
  
• The Wire (TV series)
  
• Blackadder done
  
• Fullmetal Alchemist done
  
• My Name Is Earldone
  
• Prison Breakdone
  
• Ben 10done
  
• The Prisonerdone
  
• The Sopranosdone
  
• X-Mendone
  
• Code Lyokodone
  
• Planetes(done)
  
• The Pretender (TV series)false alarm
  
• Sex and the Citydone
  
• CSI: Crime Scene Investigation(done)
  
• Strangers with Candydone
  
• Entourage (TV series) (done) --Serge 00:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  
• Langt fra Las Vegas(done)
  
• 8 Simple Rulesfalse alarm
  
• 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)

Moving lost articles

Lost articles are being moved, just like the episode articles for all the series listed above.

Most of the pages have already been moved. For the ones which haven't, i had them tagged for speedy deletion. But some of them were overturned by other editors who stated they could find no consensus for the move.

I've listed these at Request Moves, but decided this was the most relevant place to place the discussion. (note, request move tags have been placed on the three articles, but the "discuss" link on them points here)

Requested move

Mediation anyone?

Great, now we have person A and person B edit warring over what person C said while a mini-edit war is breaking out on the main page over whether the edit war on the talk page is a dispute.

Mediation anyone? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there's anything to "mediate". The actual issue of the episode naming is pretty much complete, and now we're just in an argument trying to convince a small few who are still kicking and screaming. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There's no problem here to "mediate", it's just one editor deciding there is a problem when none exists. Elonka said before she's not debating the current guildline - her problem is with exceptions. And as i pointed out before, exceptions aren't even a problem - there doesn't even exist a wikiproject or other group who's wanting articles all disambiguated.

It seems at the end, Elonka's problem comes down to the entire lost business. She wants the lost episodes diambiguated. Because...tons of TV series have been moved, none of them have caused problems and she's ignored all of that. Then she and Matthew Fenton noticed lost episodes are also being moved, and starts making a big deal out of it. Including removing speedy tags, proclaiming lack of consensus and controversy, and leaving misleading notes on other editor's talk pages. --`/aksha 04:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that mediation might be helpful at this point. Elonka and one or two other editors want a new poll — which I've commented on above — but there's clearly no consensus for that. It's equally clear that Elonka isn't going to yield in her belief that the guideline does not have consensus. Perhaps both sides need to put their opinions aside for a moment, swallow some pride and try mediation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You've all started a poll about whether Elonka is filibustering (FWIW, a poll with no obvious outcome either way is not particularly helpful, do you think?). Mediation is the anti-filibuster so I'm surprised you're not all signing up. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't mediation...like...non binding? So it's just a matter of some outside party coming in and trying to sort things out. Radiant's already been doing that - trying hard to calm things down and sort things out as a neutral outsider. I don't see mediation getting us anywhere, apart from blowing this thing even more disproportionarily big. --`/aksha 05:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFM is a more formal outlet and seems to have worked well for everyone at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes. The problem was they missed this issue. Radiant was being helpful coming here but, in the less official capacity, he can be dismissed and labelled "biased" as Elonka seems to have done with this edit. I won't speak for her but hopefully Elonka would agree that a ruling at WP:RFM would be binding. I know I would. If not, the next step would be WP:RFAR and I don't think anybody wants to go there. I sure as hell don't - I've got much better ways I could spend my time. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, while I'm not an official mediator, I came to this page because of an explicit request (by Elonka) at the village pump that some outsider looks at it. One of the facts of life is that, if one asks for a neutral comment, there is the possibility that the comment may in fact disagree with you.
• Also, I note there is some hostility on both sides - this is perhaps understandable given the length of the discussion and that people may feel tired of their opponents, but I wish both parties would take a step back and take a deep breath and realize that article naming in an encyclopedia isn't the end of the world either way. Cup of tea, anyone? (Radiant) 08:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus 101

I realize that there are some very experienced Wikipedians in this discussion, but there are also some new folks, so I wanted to take this opportunity to explain a bit about the Wikipedia consensus process.

There's a common misperception among many new editors that Wikipedia decisions are made by "voting". However, this is not correct. There are surveys, and polls, but it is very common to see non-intuitive results from these surveys. For example, it is often seen that there is a seeming "majority" for a particular position, and yet the final determination is for the minority viewpoint, or even simply "no consensus" (my own nomination for adminship is a case in point, where I received roughly twice as many support as oppose comments (86:47), but the final determination was still "no consensus").

Per Wikipedia:Consensus, the way that things are supposed to work, is that when there is disagreement, those with different points of view engage in "polite discussion and negotiation" about the matter, with the ultimate goal being to find a way to work together to "accurately and appropriately describe the different views on a subject."

Wikipedia:Guideline has similar wording, stating, "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."

In the current discussion, the core question seems to be, "What shall the wording be about episode naming at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)?" There are obviously very different opinions on this, as can be seen in the above section entitled "Summary of the discussion".

So how do we proceed at this point? My own recommendation is that some of the more neutral editors among us, or perhaps even someone from outside this discussion, reads the views that were expressed, and tries to come up with guideline wording that does the best job of summarizing those views. It is possible to write a guideline that incorporates multiple views, or references the fact that there are disputes about some aspects of a guideline. For example, see WP:UE#Borderline cases and WP:UE#Disputed issues. Another guideline page that mentions a "contentious" issue is at Wikipedia:Notability, and reading through other guideline pages at Wikipedia will quickly show that there are other controversial issues here and there.

Once we have some suggested guideline additions (perhaps a list of suggested paragraphs?), we could see if there are any that are well-worded enough to get a clear consensus of support, in which case that wording can be incorporated into the Guideline page. If we can't find wording that we all agree with, then we can move on to other techniques as recommended at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

In short, when there are editors with strong opposing views on Wikipedia, it is important that everyone comes to the table with a willingness to listen to the "other side", and to make attempts at compromise. Ultimately, whether we are dealing with a guideline page, or an article about a controversial political issue, I believe that the final version ends up stronger when the involved editors do their best to represent all major views of a subject, so that the reader can then make their own informed decision based on the information available. --Elonka 05:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that most of us are neutral in this matter, in that we have nothing personal to gain, nor do we have some sort of ulterior motivation. This is not like a political situation or something with morals or personal feelings, or anything like that. You're asking us to include your view even though it has no support, no logic, nothing. You are saying anyone who doesn't want to support your view is biassed. You've failed at showing there even needs to be a change in the first place. When something is a dumb idea then it should be rejected and not included as some form of compromise. -- Ned Scott 07:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And I take it by your comments about polls and voting that you no longer wish for another poll? Or is it that you will only say "voting is evil" when the results don't agree with your view? -- Ned Scott 07:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh. So you're claiming that your opinion is "neutral," but mine "has no logic" and is "a dumb idea." Ned, go back to WP:CIVIL class please.  :) --Elonka 07:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I'm claiming. At this point you are practically requiring us to be blunt, so I do not believe this is a civility issue. I'll repeat myself, if that has to be the case "You've failed at showing there even needs to be a change in the first place." -- Ned Scott 07:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, if you wish to discuss anything at all at this point then you must stop ignoring my question. Read #Answer this question. I have directly called for you to explain your position on why these articles deserve an exception, which you have never explained. You have explained why a particular group of editors called for an exception, but that isn't what matters. Please, stop stalling an talk about the one thing that actually matters. Jay32183 08:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Consensus is not the same as unanimity. (Radiant) 08:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. But neither does a majority mean consensus. I think that in this case, rather than trying to look at things with a polarized "one side is right, the other side is wrong" position, that this guideline would be better served by trying to find a compromise position which "accurately reflects all views." This seems to be the way that other "contested" guidelines have finally reached consensus, by marking a section as controversial, and moving on. --Elonka 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • An overwhelming majority does mean consensus. Why would 26 people need to compromise with 7 people? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Irony 101

I was looking through Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes, trying to find a hint of what Elonka has repeatedly referred to as a consensus of Lost editors to put suffixes on every episode article. I didn't find it; in fact, the only mention of the matter is in this post, as part of a laundry list of recommendations by Elonka. The specific issue of episode article naming is never mentioned again, as far as I can tell. But what I did find was this gem from Elonka [62]:

PKtm, if a majority won't convince you, if polls won't convince you, if good faith discussions won't convince you, please tell me: What would convince you that a consensus exists, and that you are part of an unreconciled minority who refuses to accept it? What proof could I possibly offer you? --Elonka 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to turn that around, and ask:

Elonka, if a majority won't convince you, if polls won't convince you, if good faith discussions won't convince you, please tell me: What would convince you that a consensus exists, and that you are part of an unreconciled minority who refuses to accept it? What proof could I possibly offer you? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

(I know that Elonka will claim that the conversation here has not been held in good faith. However, she is wrong; although the tone of the discussion has occasionally been less than ideal, the content on offer has consistently been in good faith.)

So, Elonka: what would it take to convince you that you are part of an unreconciled minority? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, as I have said many times, I, and many others, want a clean and fair poll on the matter. I've actually been having other people contact me privately about this discussion, to tell me that they want to come in and offer an opinion, but the sheer quantity of text is daunting, they're confused about what exactly is being discussed, they're confused about how to weigh in, and they're distressed about the amount of vitriole here, and don't want to wade into something controversial. Which is why I think that a structured and fair poll, would help clarify things.

Anyway, about the Lost consensus, I'm not even sure it's going to do any good trying to explain this, since most of the people in this discussion seem to be completely anti-compromise, but just in case anyone is still listening with an open mind, here's the history: The Lost guidelines came about as a byproduct of a long long long (many months) controversy/debate/mediation, about whether or not Lost should even have individual episode articles at all. The result of the mediation was "yes", but compromises had been debated and reached about how the articles were to be structured and maintained. Coming out of the mediation, we had a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines, which everyone had looked at and signed off on, and which our mediator had also modified in September 2006 [63]. At the time, the recommended article titling method was to include a suffix on all episode articles of "(Lost episode)" but this was changed to "(Lost)" on October 2 since that's how most articles appeared to be titled anyway [64]. Participants in the September mediation also agreed that a link to the new guidelines should be included on the talk pages of all episode articles, and this was posted as a "to do" item at the Lost WikiProject.[65]

In early October, a concern was raised by one of the parties to the mediation (PKtm, who was on the opposite side from me) about whether or not the articles were going to be brought into compliance with the guidelines [66], and so we renewed our commitment to get all episode articles processed. On October 13, I created a large checklist which listed every Lost episode, and what work was required on it, such as whether it needed to have its plot summary condensed down, or whether its title needed to be changed. [67] Both sides agreed on the format [68], and work then proceeded, with articles being slowly and steadily modified and moved, as necessary, with a representative from each side of the mediation "initialling" the episodes as they were brought into compliance (btw, edit summaries in these diffs point out the agreement with the naming issue) [69][70][71][72][73][74] This process went along peacefully for weeks, slowly and steadily converting articles. Then, in late October, after I'd updated some links at List of Lost episodes [75], Ned Scott suddenly reverted me. PKtm, my mediation "opponent", went in and put the changes back, to confirm that there was consensus. We also rechecked consensus by having people specifically sign off at the guidelines talk page on the naming issue [76][77], but an edit war (instigated by Ned Scott) at the guidelines page continued, until the page was actually protected [78], and Ned was full swing into the "blame Elonka" game: [79][80][81]. Efforts to convince Ned that there was consensus [82][83] were not successful, and Ned began posting requests for comment around Wikipedia: [84]. It was around then that other editors started showing up with, erm, less than civil commentary. Some of the mediation signoff work continued for a day or two, until Ned started making massive changes to the table on October 29 [85][86][87], and things have been completely stalled since then, since the carefully negotiated compromise was ripped apart, our carefully-constructed chart was shredded, and all the carefully-balanced consensus (and a fair amount of good faith) dissolved.

The next day, a "poll" was started here on this Naming conventions page, which poll received multiple, massive and rapid changes to (in my opinion) twist the wording and responses towards a particular POV. Calls for a new poll started almost immediately, but, as I've mentioned earlier, these were greeted with rapid-fire personal attacks and incivility. Our attempts to point out that there was precedent at the Star Trek pages (and Stargate and Buffy and many other television series articles), have evidently resulted in Ned and others (such as Yaksha (talk • contribs), who I believe to be another of the sockpuppets in this discussion) going through categories that had been stable for months, and systematically moving any articles that they disagree with. When members of various WikiProjects around Wikipedia have tried to speak up and indicate concern, they've been overwhelmed by some of these "posting multiple times per day" editors, telling them that the decision's already been made. However, I disagree that there is consensus, I am appalled at the shady tactics, incivility, and personal attacks that have been used routinely throughout this process, and I am, frankly, nervous about what's going to happen to the Lost episode articles, since we have them in a halfway converted state, but one of the core elements of the compromise (the article titles) has been destroyed. Which lack of commitment is probably going to lead to further problems in the future of the Lost articles, though I doubt most people here even care about that, since they're mostly fired up about the titling issue. But it's a mess that others of us are going to have to deal with.

And that's where things stand. Yes, there was a consensus, which was arrived at by a long and very painfully-negotiated compromise on the Lost episode articles. And for my part, I wish people would respect that compromise, and let us get back to work on converting articles at the Lost WikiProject, and ultimately let us all get back to editing Wikipedia, rather than continuing to argue about this naming issue, which wasn't an issue until people started getting all fired up about it, but is now resulting in changes to hundreds of articles around Wikipedia, and a whole lot of conflict. --Elonka 06:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

None of that actually matters. You have explained that a group of editors, the WikiProject, is special, not a group of articles. Common sense would dictate that when all the articles are the same, they all be treated the same. Whenever someone asks "why these articles?" your responce has been "the wikiproject". But that is the answer to the question "which group of editors?". Basically your argument for not following the guideline is that you don't want to, and it is bad for the community to break from guidelines because some one feels like it. Jay32183 06:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So you and PKtm made up this "consensus"? Again, it had nothing to do with the mediation, which you appear to admit now (but several times before you claimed was apart of the mediation). What's really funny about your little timeline is that it specifically excludes the part where I originally supported you and your rationale.

Talk:Fire + Water contains a requested move for that article to make it consistent with the (Lost) suffix. When I first stumbled across the conversation, I looked at these very guidelines and saw that there was an exception for Star Trek, so I figured that applied to Lost as well. I then proceeded to make an ass of myself because I had a little bit too much "good faith" in why WP:NC-TV said that. In the end, Wknight94 and Nohat convinced me that we shouldn't disambig the titles when it's not needed. The end result of that discussion was no consensus for the page moves. No consensus to title those articles that way. No consensus. Why did you not include this discussion in your history write up?

Just because you had very small and minor discussions before about naming issues doesn't mean that you have a sound argument or rationale.

When WikiProject Lost first started out I left this message on the talk page. I was talking about the Project getting ahead of itself, getting focused on what should be done with a WikiProject. Here's part of that message:

"Lets make ourselves aware of some of the existing fictional and TV-related guidelines so people know what's appropriate or not. A WikiProject is not an independent ruling party, or it's own government that can make up it's own rules for "their" articles. As a WikiProject we should hold ourselves to a higher standard to learn about and follow existing guidelines, policy, and consensus in related matters."

-- Ned Scott 06:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Ned; it took me a while to write this one) Elonka, thanks for taking the time to provide that history. It does help me understand the background of the dispute. However, I think that you're not telling the whole story. Around the same time that the mediation was dealing with the issue of whether Lost should have episode articles at all, there was a discussion at Talk:Fire + Water about whether or not to move that article to Fire + Water (Lost). That move request was closed with no consensus (approximately equal opinions on both sides). Interestingly, Ned Scott was originally arguing for the move; he subsequently changed his mind. In several of the links you cite yourself, Ned places the guideline discussion in the context of the move discussion at Fire + Water. Now, it's probably fair to say that Ned was overly confrontational in how he went about bringing this inconsistency to the attention of other Lost editors. But that doesn't mean that his objections are without merit, or should have been excluded from the discussion.

Can you explain to me how the article naming is a "core element" of the compromise? I don't understand how a core element could avoid being mentioned in the mediation summary.

It seems to me that the same story is being repeated over and over again, but with different players. At Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes, PKtm is in the minority and fiercely protests the (majority) view advocated by Elonka. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines, Ned Scott is in the minority and fiercely protests the (majority) view advocated by Elonka. Here, Elonka is in the minority and fiercely protests the (majority) view advocated by... well, about 80% of the people who participated in the last poll. The first two discussions were intense but fairly small. This one has had over 40 participants, which is huge for a policy discussion. I put it to you, Elonka: you are in the same position now that PKtm and Ned Scott were formerly in. The question you have to answer is whether you'd rather take the model of PKtm or of Ned: will you allow the supermajority's view to be implemented, or will you continue to fight? Or can you help us to find another alternative? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

First, there needs to be a cease-fire, which means that Yaksha and his ilk who are pushing through many hundreds of page moves [88] (which is further exacerbating this situation), need to stand down. Next, I want a clean poll, run fairly, with wording that is agreed upon before the poll opens. Run that poll for a minimum of one week, cleanly. If there's a clear consensus at the end of that time, I, for my part, will accept it. --Elonka 07:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you accept the information that's been presented to you? You have no rationale supporting you, so it doesn't actually matter how many people agree with you. You want to do things differently because you feel special, but it doesn't work that way. Accept the argument, not the numbers. Jay32183 07:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Need to stand down". No - they don't. We haven't seen anyone who would make them stand down either. "I want a clean poll" doesn't mean you are going to get it - not a binding one anyway. At this point, folks on this side of the fence would be able to claim a tainted poll based solely on the fact that others on this side have been bored into a coma by the repetition and the powerless insistence. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Me and my ilk...flattering, Elonka, really. So what if we're making hundreds of page moves? This isn't a war, we don't need a cease-fire. The guildline is not under debate, and by definition it should be followed by default, otherwise it serves no purpose. So, we move the pages to conform. The only debate here is about exceptions. If you manage to convince everyone else that any one TV series deserves to be an exception, then i'll volunteer to go move everything back to how it once was. But until such an exception is justified, the moving continues. --`/aksha 07:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Though, I would say that the guideline is most definitely under debate, as is pretty clearly demonstrated by the way that the guideline itself has a "dispute" tag on it and is currently protected, and this talk page keeps scrolling and scrolling. It's hard to get more "under debate" than that, I'd say. ;) --Elonka 08:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before (actually, I even changed the dispute tag to reflect this), the guideline itself is not in dispute. You've clearly stated that you don't want to change the guideline, but rather allow WikiProjects to make exceptions to it. We've said that's ok, if they have a reasonable rationale, and you haven't provided one. There is a dispute, but it is not on the guideline. -- Ned Scott 08:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

....that...last comment...was meant to be sarcastic --`/aksha 09:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

To new people coming here, the main issue here is whether articles on television episodes should have the series name as a suffix, or whether only articles needing disambiguation should have such a suffix. Some Wikiprojects have done the former, our present guidelines suggest the latter. A secondary issue is whether the suffix should then be the series name, or whether it should include the word "episode". Current debate is at the bottom of this page; earlier debate and a variety of polls and summaries on the subject are above, or in the archive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radiant! (talk • contribs) .

BTW, when you say "some have done the former", do you basically mean two? Only Star Trek and Lost seem to have done them that way and done them quasi-intentionally. The rest I think we figured were just copying the Star Trek precedent which, in turn, appears to have been set forth by basically one guy all by himself with no discussion whatsoever. Does that sound about accurate? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost: except that the Lost discussion appears to have taken place off-wiki, so nobody is really clear what the intentions were. There is certainly no evidence on-wiki that Lost has established a convention to place suffixes on all episode article titles. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, even better - a smoky dimly-lit back room naming convention. Why include the whole project when you can include just the people that agree with you? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's fair — the Lost article naming convention was supposedly arrived at as a by-product of mediation over another debate, and I'm sure it was reached with good faith. I'm not sure exactly how it happened (as I said, it's not on-wiki, and I wasn't a participant), but I think its intentions were good. Unfortunately, the discussion appears to have reached a resolution that was satisfactory only to the participants in that conversation, and didn't pay sufficient attention to the larger context of Wikipedia — which, of course, is why it's a bad idea to establish guidelines off-wiki. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Lost discussion didn't happen off-site, it didn't happen at all. What did happen was that the results of the mediation were copied to a sub-page of the Lost WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines) by Elonka [89]. When Elonka did this she added a section on episode titles, and then rationalized that when everyone agreed with the mediation results they also agreed with her addition. -- Ned Scott 19:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like not even the other project participants were real satisfied. Basically, Josiah, you said the same thing as I - only in a nicer way!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Poll again?

In a word, no. We've been over this several times. (Radiant) 08:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Users looking for the old RFC can find it in the archives. (Radiant) 08:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it! I'll add my comment, which was "no. This has now crossed the line in being disruptive." -- Ned Scott 08:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiple people have called for a clean discussion, since the old one was extremely tangled. The wording in the above poll is primarily that recommended by Josiah Rowe. Let's let things run for one week, in a clean manner. --Elonka 09:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Every time you ask, arbcom looks more friendly. -- Ned Scott 10:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And before you say it, no, "multiple invitations have gone out" doesn't justify this. --`/aksha 09:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Multiple people have disagreed with Yet Another Poll. The first poll was clear. The poll about whether the first poll was tainted showed that it wasn't. The summary of positions above makes the position clear yet again. Consensus does not equate to unanimity, and if a few people disagree with something that doesn't mean it's not consensual. People are welcome to comment here as usual, as always; there is no need to call for everyone to repeat their position once more in a poll-like fashion. (Radiant) 10:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have put a few comments up on this very long series of discussions in the last half hour, not sure where is best. This is the first I knew about this discussion. I am still (after an hour and a half of reading) a little unclear whether this is a substantive or procedural discussion. However, as an 'outsider' to this discussion - reading it for the first time today - I feel that Elonka's views have been mischaracterized and that she has been unnecessarily abused. Thank you, Elonka, for trying to draw attention to the fact that both substantive issues may need more discussion. The high level of hostility and personal attacks are completely inappropriate and they turn off newer or less aggressive editors, and creates an unhealthy wikiclimate. It would have been so much easier to just have had a new discussion, instead of arguing over whether there should be a new discussion or not. If there is an issue, discuss it and assume good faith. I know that this has gotten really long, but it wouldn't have been nearly as long if so many people weren't just pushing so hard for things to be closed. Good lord, if somebody wants to talk about something a little longer, or look at things from different angles, or feels that some ideas have been marginalized or that some discussions need to continue, just talk and be done with it. It looks really bad, looking back over the page, how aggressive folx have been in trying to stamp out dissent on an issue that seems like there are at least 2 working sides. Riverbend 17:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If "easy" is your main concern, it would have been very easy to accept the obvious 26-7 consensus from the first poll. I've seriously never seen a situation as lopsided as this contested so hard. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Riverbend, it might seem that we're a bit harsh with Elonka, but I assure you that is only because this debate has been dragged out needlessly by her and two or three others, her making very misleading statements, and her harassing other editors in the form of inappropriate user talk page warnings. Elonka is very good at misrepresenting the situation. I quote Serge:
    • "The interesting thing about most of Elonka's posts here is if you read them out of context, ignore everything else she and others have said previously, what she says seems to make sense. However, if you take the time to keep up, and when you put it in context... --Serge"
    • Take a look at the start of the debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Episode title RfC and then work your way down, and you'll see what I mean. No one here means any disrespect, but there's only so many times you'll let yourself be played. Elonka's tactics have become highly disruptive and manipulative, and the editors here are just getting tired of it, that's all. -- Ned Scott 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There has been profound disrespect throughout this process, ever since the first poll started on October 30, and then was rapidly twisted past recognition. The "obvious 26-7 consensus" that Wknight94 cites above was meaningless, and repeated calls for a new and clean poll have been belittled as "stalling"[90][91], "immature delay tactics"[92][93], "bad faith" [94], and the "whining"[95] of "sore losers"[96] engaging in "borderline trolling"[97] and being generally "disruptive" [98][99]. Riverbend is correct in his assessment that much of this discussion has been little more than aggressive people attempting to stamp out dissent. We need a clean and civil discussion. --Elonka 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A 26-7 consensus is meaningless? I think maybe an 8-7 vote or even a 12-7 vote could be called meaningless - but 26-7?! That's a blowout even in the NFL and they can score 7 at a time. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at the situation. Elonka, when you called for a new poll, you misrepresented people as supporting another poll - in my case you did it twice, even when I pointed it out after the first one and said "For the record, I strongly oppose doing another poll." You said that a second poll should use language that was acceptable to all, yet you posted a poll with language that people had disputed as biased. And when you invited others to participate on other talk pages, you used biased language that misrepresented the situation and was favorable to your position (which I think verged on campaigning). And now we find out that the "guideline" in WP:LOST didn't come from mediation (as you claimed in your edit histories when changing article names), but was simply added by you to the policy with no consensus - obviously consensus to not follow WP:D wasn't present, as demonstrated by the numerous page moves of the Lost episode articles. Based on your actions, I don't see how you can still claim good faith in this discussion, or take a plea for "civility" from you seriously. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you've cited the diffs, I can only assume you've actually read them -- yet you continue to ignore the very valid points they bring up. I especially like how you cite ThuranX, the exact sort of occaisional contributor you purport to be defending. Once again, if you want respect and support, you need to argue substantive issues, not procedural ones. Otherwise, it's only natural to come to the conclusion that you're stalling. It's not belittling you if it's true, so prove us wrong: #Answer this question, among others. -Anþony 01:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

I can see six possible courses of action here, depending on the views and actions of those editing the page. Let's examine them one by one:

1. We continue squabbling like toddlers fighting over a toy. I think that we all would agree that the conversation on this page has not been very productive. But if we choose, we can continue as we have been.
2. The majority of editors agree to do as Elonka wishes, and hold another poll. I don't think this is very likely to happen. I proposed this last week, and it was pretty soundly rejected. Since I myself believe that the discussion following the previous poll established a consensus, I'm not going to push for this one.
3. Elonka and the editors supporting her accept that there is a consensus opposing their position. This also seems quite unlikely to me.
4. We continue to escalate the confrontation, and (sooner or later) take it to ArbCom. This is an incredibly long, tedious and painful process for everyone; plus, in the grand scheme of Wikipedia the issue of how television episode articles are named is pretty insignificant, and I'd feel bad wasting ArbCom's valuable time with it. I'd really like to avoid this if at all possible.
5. Everyone agrees to drop the matter, leaving the guideline as it is but in practice allowing exceptions by WikiProjects. This might seem an attractive compromise on the surface of it, but would actually be absurd given the current status of the survey on Lost articles.
6. We agree to mediation, as suggested by Wknight94 above. Although the suggestion didn't get very far last time, I think that it's our best option.

So, once again: mediation anyone? Even if we can't agree on whether a consensus had previously been established, can we at least agree that the current debate is getting us nowhere? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm trying to follow a #7 which is not on your list: Watch this page, calmly follow the script and repeat the well-rehearsed answers that I've already given numerous times and exert as little energy as possible - all while the folks here that recognize the obvious consensus go about moving articles to be the way the consensus has decided. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reading my mind. +1 to #7. Of course, some may claim this is the same as #1, but I think it's different. --Serge 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Same here actually. #7 was my plan. Follow this page, get all the pages moved. Sort out any problems that may arise (although none has) from the moving. And once everything is moved, leave and let live and get this page off my watchlist --`/aksha 05:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the opposing logic is that a 26-7 poll is not consensus. You can only squabble with that for so long. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hell, I started doing #7 before I even stumbled across this discussion. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless we start to consider consensus as being unanimity, 80% support is very good for a supermajority. --`/aksha 06:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Option #7 is not an option, because it is clearly against Wikipedia policy to move pages without consensus. --Elonka 06:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed poll wording

Here's my latest recommendation, which is primarily based off of Josiah Rowe's wording, with a few tweaks. Please suggest any changes below. --Elonka 08:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

==Straw poll==

ISSUE IN QUESTION: The general practice for article naming on Wikipedia is for articles to be titled with the simplest form that is not ambiguous with other titles. Parenthetical suffixes are usually used for disambiguation. However, on a recent review of the situation, it was discovered that many hundreds of pages for television episodes have been created with parenthetical suffixes, even though their titles are not ambiguous. Some television program WikiProjects (such as WikiProject Star Trek, WikiProject Buffyverse, and WikiProject Stargate) have recommended the use of suffixes such as (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) as a general practice (example: Star Trek); others have followed the general guidelines (example: Babylon 5)

Some editors feel that the general disambiguation guidelines should be followed, and all pages for episodes with unambiguous titles should be moved to names without a suffix. Others believe that all television episode articles should have suffixes appended, whether their titles are ambiguous or not. Still others believe that the editors of a particular program, like with a WikiProject, should be able to determine what pattern works best for that show.

===Question #1 - appropriateness of suffixes ===

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 always use regular suffixes in order to provide for a consistent naming system? Also, should television WikiProjects be allowed to determine individualized naming guidelines, based on the needs of their particular show, or should a single pattern of naming be applied to all television episode articles on Wikipedia?

=== Question #2 - what type of suffix should be used?===

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?

===Other comments===

How's that look? We could also potentially try something completely different, such as suggesting new guideline wording, and then seeing if there is support to put that in the Guideline page. For example, based on the #Summary of discussion comments, I think this is a pretty fair representation of the multiple opinions:

==Episode naming==

In most cases, for an article created about a single episode, use the title of the episode itself. If that title is already in use, add a disambiguating suffix of (<seriesname>). If an episode title is the same as a character or object from the series which has its own page, disambiguate further with (<seriesname episode>). It is also a good idea to create extra redirects with the various versions, to help with internal linking.

In some cases, such as upon agreement from a WikiProject about a certain series (for example, with Star Trek), all episodes within that series may use a consistent titling system, such as a specific abbreviation which indicates which series it is from, regardless of regardless of whether or not the suffix is strictly required by disambiguation rules. These are special "exception" cases and are generally discouraged for other series.

Let's take as read that I, and many others, don't think a new poll is necessary; that said, for the sake of harmony, I'll play along with this as an exercise in wordsmithing. Here are the problems I have with this proposed wording:

• I really don't think that "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of pages should be mentioned. There are doubtless just as many, if not more, episode articles named in keeping with the guideline, and this suggests otherwise. I would simply say "it was discovered that many pages for television episodes had been created".
• There is considerable debate over whether the Lost WikiProject did, in fact, agree to recommend preemptive disambiguation (in addition to the several times this has been pointed out on this page, see also here for one member of that mediation who does not believe that an episode naming guideline was part of it). Including mention of Lost in the introduction is therefore problematic, and may distract from the actual issue. It would be better to mention WikiProject Buffyverse instead.
• I think that the phrasing of "the hundreds of existing suffix articles are "wrong" and must be fixed" is biased towards your position, Elonka. It would be more neutral to say something like "Some editors feel that the existing disambiguation guidelines should be followed, and existing episode articles not in keeping with them should be moved" or "...should be followed, and all pages for episodes with unambiguous titles should be named without a suffix".
• I don't know whether anyone is advocating an "identical format" for all television episodes. All that's being discussed here is to what extent WikiProjects should have control over article naming guidelines, not whether every TV episode has to use the same infobox or something like that. I would reword the last sentence of question #1 to: "Also, should television WikiProjects be allowed to determine individualized naming guidelines, or should a single pattern of naming be applied to all episode articles on Wikipedia?"
• Unsurprisingly, I don't think that the summary of comments reflects a need to incorporate the second paragraph under your proposed guideline wording. If we were to hold a new poll/discussion, I don't think that there would be much sense in proposing that off the bat. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the poll wording, I agree with most of your comments, though I'd still like wording that indicates that there were a lot of articles created with suffixes, it wasn't just a couple handfuls that we're discussing here. So how about just "many hundreds"? I've updated the wording above to indicate changes. --Elonka 10:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Question #1 has already been covered and it would be disruptive to repeat it. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The new wording looks good, I don't see any point, the nature of WP:POINT is to encourage users to discuss; which is exactly what Elonka is trying to get several of you to do. So in my humble opinion I say _proceed_ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT says not to cause a disruption. When dozens of people (including five different administrators) say that an issue is closed while only three or four say it isn't, plowing ahead anyway and reopening the issue is about as clear a disruption as I can imagine. (I'd love to know why I was accused of making personal attacks for my last post where I iterated this). —Wknight94 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I have said before (and will reiterate again just for you..) - You being a sysop makes your opinion no more important then that of a regular user, frankly the "I'm a sysop so get out approach." is what is detracting this conversation as most users do not wish to get involved in such a long and muddled conversation. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"I'm a sysop so get out approach." is straw man. No one has said that. I welcome everyone - it's just that the more people that are welcomed, the more weigh in favor of closing this issue - therefore the more people that are disrupted from what they were trying to do because the few remaining won't let it die. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The actual problem is that no one has produced a sound, let alone valid, argument for why the guideline should not be followed as currently written. No one has said "I'm a sysop so get out" but people have said "Say something meaningful or stop wasting my time", which has never been responded to with anything meaningful. Therefore the issue is closed because only one side of the discussion has anything meaningful to say. Jay32183 22:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There has never been any indication, as Wknight94 states, that "dozens of people say this matter is closed." There was one poll, which was highly tangled, and calls for the poll to be re-run started almost immediately. Naturally, those in the "majority" on the old poll are claiming that there was no problem, and that no new poll is necessary. Though in this particular case, a few of the people in the majority are showing great disrespect to other editors (such as accusing them of "having nothing meaningful to say"). I would also point out that I see no sense in charging a WP:POINT violation, since there's no clause from that policy which is being violated. Also, MatthewFenton is correct, that whether or not someone is an admin in this discussion has no relevance -- anyone here who happens to have administrator access is here as a normal user only, and their opinion carries no additional weight. I would hope, however, that anyone here with admin access would feel some responsibility to set a good example of proper and civil behavior, which shows respect for all editors' opinions, even if there is disagreement.

I recommend that instead of continuing to argue about whether or not there should be a new poll, that we focus on working out wording for a new poll, and move forward. Either that, or let's agree that we're deadlocked, and move on to another step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, such as seeking a mediator or escalating this to ArbCom. --Elonka 23:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, you were still the only one who thought we were deadlocked, however, if you insist on this exercise in trying to drum up support where there was none before, at least add WikiProject Battlestar Galactica as another project that does not believe in disambiguating needlessly. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The BSG project has 4 members, I'm 1, you are 1.. wow.. It's massive, eh ;-)? - and I have objected on the talk page. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Notification of move request survey: Lost (TV series) -> Lost

Here is something I suspect we might all be able to agree on! There is a move request to move Lost (TV series) to Lost. Most of the people voting are opposed to the move for reasons that do not make sense. The fact is, Lost is much like Stephen King's book Misery (upon which the movie is based). Yes, "misery" is a common word in English, but there is no Wikipedia article about that usage, nor should there be. That leaves that term open for usage by the primary topic that uses that term, which, in the case of "Misery", is King's book. I think Lost is in an analogous situation (except more people dislike Lost and so don't want to see it at Lost, I suspect). Maybe I'm missing something, and I really dislike the Lost TV series, but the reasons given by the opposers to this move do not make sense to me. I mean, what else would someone be looking for if not the TV series when searching for "Lost" in Wikipedia? Please join in at Talk:Lost (TV series)#Requested Move. --Serge 20:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lost is currently a disambiguation page. I don't know what they hope to accomplish. I doubt it'll go forth just on that basis alone. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Even better... the same nominator is tryng to get Lost, Scotland deleted in order to help pave the way. Someone should tell this person to come down. Oh, wait, I already have. --BlueSquadronRaven 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, if the move got consensus the disambiguation page Lost would be moved to Lost (disambiguation). However, it's fairly clear (and was clear from the two previous move requests on this subject) that there won't be a consensus to move that page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Maternity Leave (Lost) move request

I have requested to move Maternity Leave (Lost) to Maternity Leave. A "survey" can be found at Talk:Maternity Leave (Lost)#Requested move. -- Wikipedical 00:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please wait until Aprl 1st for these sorts of things. --BlueSquadronRaven 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, i think the person is being series. We don't actually have an article called "Maternity Leave". Instead, Maternity Leave is a disambiguation page for two items - Maternity Leave (Lost) and Parental leave. However, Parental leave really shouldn't be on a dab page for Maternity leave, since dab pages are only for articles of the same title (and not for listing articles of similar topic).

So once you removed Parental leave from the dab page, the only thing that's left is Maternity Leave (Lost). A top-header disambiguation link from Maternity Leave (Lost) to Parental leave should really be fine. --`/aksha 02:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The move has been almost universally opposed so far on that talk page poll as inappropriate. Riverbend 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that "dab pages are only for articles of the same title" is incorrect. We disambiguate synonyms. Steve block Talk 10:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess only was a bit of a exaggeration. But "related topics" aren't generally put on disambiguation pages. And disambiguation pages aren't generally made for only two items either, especially when one such item happens to be a related topic (and not an actual title confusion). It's safe to say the move will be oppossed, after it's closed, i think it's probably better to just redirect Maternity Leave straight to Parental leave and add a disambiguation header message about the lost episode. --`/aksha 13:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The "parental leave" article is not a "related topic". It is the article about "maternity leave". As such, it is absolutely correct for it to appear on the disambiguation page for "maternity leave". If anything, Maternity Leave should redirect to parental leave, and a hatnote should be added to that page saying that "maternity leave" redirects there, and if they want the Lost episode, to see Maternity Leave (Lost). Nohat 18:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'd like since people usually get upset when I talk about the searches with upper-case letters. Jay32183 18:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's probably a good idea to ditch this disambig, redirect "maternity leave" to the common term (parental leave) and at the top of that add a note "maternity leave redirects here; for the Lost episode, see link". That's usual practice for dabs of two things. (Radiant) 10:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for a new poll

Feel free to add/remove/change comments here if you believe the information is incorrect. You can also add your own name if you would like.

• Matthewfenton: "proceed with this" [100]
• Englishrose: "the poll does need to be redone" [101]
• PeregrineFisher: "let's redo it" [102]
• PKtm: "I think this wording is clear enough, and I'd like to (again) encourage that we proceed" [103]
• Argash: Start the poll over [104]
• Josiah Rowe: A new poll is not necessary, but is preferable to continued mudslinging [105]
• Oggleboppiter "I think having a new poll is a fantastic idea" [106]
• Elonka: "The old poll was a mess. Let's have a new one, run in a clean manner, with wording that is agreed-upon ahead of time". --Elonka 08:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Riverbend: "There should be a new, clean, well-advertised discussion since this seems to be such a hot issue." [107]

It is my understanding that you don't really need anyone's permission to start a poll, so I suggest you stop asking for it and just start the poll. Of course, it won't be binding or particularly meaningful given the lengthy discussion already and the overwhelming support for keeping the guideline as it is now. If it makes you happy and would allow us to continue forward on substantive issues, I wouldn't stop you. I will, however, publicly abstain from voting and encourage others to do the same. -Anþony 10:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• I believe Elonka is misinterpreting several of the comments here; for instance, Josiah Rowe says he doesn't think a poll is necessary, and obviously Ned Scott is not in support of a new poll. Shannernanner does not call for a new poll but for stability in the then-present one. Some comments, like Milo's, appear to be made in exasperation ("if you absolutely insist on a new poll...") which should not be interpreted as support for one. And some comments, like Oggleboppiter's, appear to be based on the idea that Wikipedia must use polls to decide things, which is a fallacy.
• If as Anthony says, we have overwhelming support for keeping the guideline as it is now, what exactly is the point of yet another poll? The problems caused by the first polls should show us that polling on such issues as this is not such a great idea in the first place. (Radiant) 10:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this section has already been done once. Just copy and paste from wherever that was. You're free to copy my parts over anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I am on wikibreak currently, but I do read through the discussion once in a while; I noticed my name included on the previous list several days ago, but did not clarify as Radiant stated my position accurately. Since my name has again been included, I have removed it; Radiant has again stated correctly the context of my comment. I was not supporting and do not support a new poll. Shannernanner 09:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

With Elonka continuing to insist that another poll would put this whole thing to rest, I'd like to know exactly, specifically what conditions she would accept as consensus and let this thing end. If there were to be another poll, what would be required for you to consider it a definitive result? A certain percent of votes going one way or the other? Not actually counting the "votes" but someone interpreting which side is more convincing? And in the event of a vote that isn't decisively consensus, what result would you propose? You have mentioned that there should be some sort of "compromise wording", that both sides could potentially be happy with, what exactly would that be? My biggest concern about another poll is that it would not put things to rest, but would be disputed again, or there would be debate over how it should be interpreted. So please, could you spell out exactly what you would consider as the matter being settled? (note that this statement shouldn't be interpreted as supporting another poll) --Milo H Minderbinder 15:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said way way above somewhere, I would dispute if a new poll were to give different results because the attrition here has probably rendered a few people catatonic. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No need for a new poll

There's no need for a new poll, consensus has been demonstrated and I think at this point we have to consider guidance at WP:CONSENSUS, namely, that "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus." Steve block Talk 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Before long, admins alone are going to outnumber the minority on this issue. Five and counting... —Wknight94 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here, here! The poll has been done and consensus has been reached, and it is particularly valid not because we waited for every possible person on the Wiki to sound off on it, but because those who are actively engaged in editing of television episode articles have made their thoughts known. Please put a bullet in this issue and move on. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Category renaming

As an interesting sidenote to the issue of whether the episodes should have suffixes or not, there are evidently a few television-related categories that are undergoing similar discussions right now, where the general consensus is that a suffix is a good idea, even if not specifically required for disambiguation purposes, so that it keeps things consistent . . .

• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 27#Lost
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 27#Smallville
• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 27#Oz

--Elonka 23:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is a good point that this issue and related ones affect, and are being addressed in various places by, the broader community. It is frustrating in a way that the discussion isn't centralized, to get a greater consensus and make sure everyone is on the same page, but on the other hand, I think it shows that there are folx with opinions on disambiguation that are having an effect in places, but they are not in on this discussion, and that different places are coming up with what works for their specific articles/stuff/whatever. Not quite sure which moral to take away, but it is an interesting dynamic. . . . Thanx for bringing it up! Riverbend 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He he he, however, I would expect that now that it has been brought up, many will run down there to make their (differing) views known as well to outnumber them! That is what I would predict, because folx here have repeatedly said things like they want to make sure that the broader community can go on and overrule localized consensuses to enforce the guideline. . . Riverbend 23:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In all three, disambiguation is the main reason given for the move (which makes sense considering Lost, Oz, and Smallville are all disambiguations). I doubt the people commenting there would be happy to hear that their comments are being characterized as "disambiguate unnecessarily". --Milo H Minderbinder 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Who said "disambiguate unnecessarily"? The way I read it (I admit that I am tired and could be missing something big), they were having a similar discussion to the 'moving the Lost episode discussion', about whether it was "necessary" (by somewhat conflicting standards) to disambiguate, and in those cases it looks like consistency was an important factor in the dab decisions, as well as differing perceptions of what "necessary" means. It is not exactly the same discussion, but it does show that others are also discussing the balance of consistency, "necessity", and strict adherence to the policy vis-a-vis disambiguation. I THINK that is what Elonka was saying, again could be wrong cause I can't speak for others. . . . Riverbend 00:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read those discussions thoroughly yet, but my instinctual response is that category naming and article naming are different things. The purpose of a category is to provide context for an article: to say, "This article, like others, is about such-and-such." It makes sense, in that context, to be precise about what such-and-such is. Article naming is different from category naming: an article's name does not need to provide context. If it were the function of article naming to provide context, where would you draw the line? Is it sufficient to call "Live Together, Die Alone" "Live Together, Die Alone (Lost episode), or do you have to say "Live Together, Die Alone (Lost (TV series) episode)? Or "Live Together, Die Alone (Second season Lost (TV series) episode)"? Why not "Live Together, Die Alone (Lost (TV series) episode with Desmond flashback)"? I acknowledge that this is a reductio ad absurdum, but I think the point is valid: categories and article names serve different purposes, and the arguments that apply to one don't necessarily apply to the other. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How much better Wikipedia would be if all editors were able to think with your clarity and vision, Josiah. --Serge 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

These are indeed two very different situations, so it's hardly relevant. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation discussion

I'd recommend the next step in WP:DR if you insist on moving forward. The resistance here has been far too great for a new poll to even begin. You've even been reverted on more than one occasion. Even it were to begin and, by some bizarre reversal of fortune, the nearly-80% consensus in one direction were to became an 80% consensus in the other direction, everyone here would certainly cry foul, resulting in disruption to the point of chaos. I can't imagine what you think you would gain by going further in WP:DR but you're more than welcome to. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It bears mentioning once again that the old poll decided nothing. The lengthy and reasoned discussion that followed -- which saw Elonka repeatedly ducking valid arguments in favor of pushing for another poll -- determined the consensus. It doesn't matter who won the first poll and neither would it matter if the poll were repeated, which is why I invite everyone to abstain should it ever take place. -Anþony (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent point — the poll is really a diversion from the substantive issues, which were determined in the conversation that followed the poll. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, when I said "say something meaningful" I meant stop talking about a poll at all. You have never once presented a sound argument. That is not an uncivil comment, it is plain and simple truth. You ignore the discussion and talk about polling. You respond to questions with answers to questions that weren't actually asked. Whenever anyone has asked you why "Lost" is a special case you have said "Well the Wikiproject decided..." What you need to say is "These articles are special because..." otherwise nothing you say means anything relevant to this discussion. The editors do not make the articles special, the Wikiproject doesn't make the articles special. Since you won't talk about what actually matters you are only wasting everyone's time, including your own. This situation does not actually require concensus because the things you are saying are factually wrong. Jay32183 01:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not entirely accurate to say that "the situation doesn't require consensus" — it does. However, I think that there's a rough consensus here supporting Jay's interpretation of events, rather than Elonka's.

That said, if we are to go further in WP:DR, do we want to try mediation or go straight to ArbCom? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just getting frustrated. If mediation can end this, I'm all for it. ArbCom if necessary too. Jay32183 07:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation sounds good to me, although I am not sure if mediation would be about 1) the Poll or 2) substantive naming convention stuff - what would be the scope? Riverbend 20:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• If people think mediation would help, by all means go for it. I believe that by its nature mediation would mostly be about the way people treat each other, which on this page has been somewhat below par. Mediation, as far as I know, is about personal conflicts and not about conventions. (Radiant) 20:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose it should cover whatever would make this end, right? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully so - I am just wondering how the scope of the mediation is/will be defined. Riverbend 22:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think mediation on such a relatively petty issue is the worst possible thing when the discussion has been substantive, but, I think, it's better than a new poll, for which Elonka has been recruiting others actively. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if most people aren't aware of this already, but it seems that steps toward informal mediation have already begun: User talk:Wikizach#Mediation 3. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There was another informal attempt at mediation earlier: Radiant! (talk • contribs) came here as a result of a request from Elonka for a neutral perspective. She was unhappy with the result, and the sturm und drang continued. I think that if we're going to have mediation, it should be done formally, with a full WP:RFM. I'll undertake that, if others agree. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Let us know where. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

When can we start formal mediation? Elonka's attempt to recruit an informal mediator is heavily biased and omits some very key facts. -Anþony (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll work up a proposal at WP:RFM. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

History has a tendency to repeat itself

... and as such we will return to this discussion at a later date. Elonka is not alone, just the most vocal... The problem with TV episodes they usually reference something with in the show, or the world, to help people connect. So as such we will need to be disambig more and more titles. (A word or a capitalization diffrences is a stupid reason not to disambig.) This leads to a consistancy issue, why are some title diasmbiged while other are not? This issue of consistancy will not go away withthe concensus we have today, so the issue will be brought up again, and who knows maybe next time it will go the other way.. EnsRedShirt 10:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I just found this page today, I do hope that at some point the actual issue could be discussed again - I saw very little actual talk of substantive stuff here, just procedural. For the record, since I didn't know about this discussion earlier, I am in favor of total disambiguation for episode articles, as is done on the Buffy site and many others - we should have consistency among articles from each series. If the guidelines want disambiguation only when necessary, then a series should be able to choose to make that exception to the general guidelines. It makes link-making more predictable and seems really reasonable, especially considering that as other pages are created that may make future disambiguation problems, it would make so much more sense. Riverbend

If any articles or WikiProject want an exception then they need to have a rational reason for exception. Link-making is hardly an issue, as I seriously doubt most editors and readers know the exact title off hand, and would likely check the article before making the link. WP:D explains how we can handle future disambiguation conflicts, should they arise. The only argument that has been offered is "consistency", but without a reason why we need consistency. -- Ned Scott 20:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's something I said a few sections up " I think this is one situation were common practice holds no weight. For one, it's not uncommon for a single editor to start 20, 30, or even 40 + episode articles. Not only that, but a single List of episodes article can dictate the naming when people create via redlinks. It's also human nature to do things like consistent naming for the sake of consistency alone. It's one of those things that can easily spread, and fast. This alone only tells us that it's easy to start articles on Wikipedia, not that there was any considerable thought behind the process. -- Ned Scott" -- Ned Scott 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are some title dabbed and some not? Because some need them and some don't.

You may as well ask for all books to be dabbed with the author. After all, some books are and some books are not. And...why the hell does everything here not need dabbing when some already do? --`/aksha 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, see arguments presented here --`/aksha 13:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You missunderstand who is asking the question, its not me or Elonka or any other editor. It's the end reader, wondering why a connected series of articles doesn't look like a connected series of articles. EnsRedShirt 17:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of readers wonder why we don't have recipes on Wikipedia, or more fan site external links. Most readers will not type in an episode name directly, they will follow a link, making it a non-issue for the reader. -- Ned Scott 20:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

EnsRedShirt, I think you're making a mistake in assuming that the average reader will notice or care whether article titles are "consistent". If, for example, someone were reading the pages about the character Simon Templar ("The Saint"), they would see several pages that have the suffix (The Saint) after them, and several that do not. (The first four novels in that series are at the pages Meet - The Tiger!, Enter the Saint, The Last Hero (The Saint) and Knight Templar (The Saint).) This is not a problem. If Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes were titled in accordance with this guideline, I don't think anyone would wonder why they would go from Encounter at Farpoint to The Naked Now to Code of Honor (TNG episode); or, if they did, they would quickly realize that the suffixes went with episodes that had names shared with other topics.

As I said here, the desire for all pages in a given category to have the same suffix is solely an aesthetic one, and is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines or policies. Wikipedia:Disambiguation says, "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page." That's what parenthetical suffixes are for: disambiguation, and disambiguation only. They're not there to provide context for a page, or to make pages look "consistent". If redirects are provided, there's no problem with ease of link creation either.

Elonka also cited WP:NC, which says "Generally, 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." She read this as supporting preemptive disambiguation of episode articles. However, she chose not to cite the next paragraph, which makes it clear (to me, at least) why the "consistency" argument holds no water:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

Who is most likely to care whether the members of a given category have the same suffix in their titles? Editors of those articles, and specialists in that series. A lay reader isn't going to care whether the articles have the same suffix or not. They're here for the information. As long as they can navigate between articles well, it won't matter to them whether an episode has (TNG episode) after it or not. It's the editors who care how a category looks. The reader or the general audience won't care. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And I respectfully disagree. It benefits the readers when a series of articles look consistant top to bottom. EnsRedShirt 03:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that all Wikipedia articles have a parenthetical disambiguator after them? Jay32183 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The only place you'll see them like that is in a category. Is that where you're concerned about appearance? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(replying to EnsRedShirt) How exactly, in your view, does this "consistency" benefit readers? What possible difference can it make? And why are episodes of a television series any different from any other articles in a series, such as film series, novel series or even Prime Ministers of New Zealand, all of which are disambiguated only as necessary? Do you disagree with the line in the long-standing Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Disambiguation that says "When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page."? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as disambiguation, just clarification for the reader so that they can quickly realize what they are reading at a glance.. As for the others thats up for their wikiprojects and editors to decide, I am neither so I won't comment on what they decide to do or not to do.EnsRedShirt 04:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So disambiguation isn't disambiguation, but actually functions as the lead and category? That argument has already been demonstrated as factually inaccurate. Jay32183 05:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise, most every novel would need its author in parentheses, most astronomical articles (Messier 31, e.g.) would need (star cluster) or (galaxy) after them, and just about every political figure in every country would need an explanation after their name (surely not every English-speaking reader from Bangladesh knows who Tom Daschle is), etc. That's a job for the first sentence of the article, not the article title. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent our position by dragging in all these other types of examples (that's a classic example of a "Straw man" argument). What I am saying is that for television episodes, which are stories that are released in a clear sequence, and usually have succession boxes to allow people to step through everything in order, it makes sense to have consistent article titles. And even so, I am not saying that all television series should use this method, but that for those series which do choose this method, I don't see it as causing a problem, and indeed, I can see many advantages to it, including consistency of appearance, inclusion of context in the article title, and ease of distinguishing which show that an episode is from, when scanning a watchlist. --Elonka 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you have not determined any TV series as different from another. Knowing that you can't make an exception, it's all or nothing. Also, you haven't presented that tv shows are different from any other subject, even those with a clear sequence, and will also need to be all or nothing.Jay32183 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what Jay said is why my argument is not straw man at all. Your argument would apply to stepping through U.S. Senators or a list of basketball players or a list of Hemmingway novels. Your notion that "it wouldn't hurt" is a bit of a straw man now that you mention it. No one has said it would "hurt" - we're just saying it's unnecessary and anti-guideline. Making every word in every one of the Lost articles' upper case wouldn't "hurt" either. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"but that for those series which do choose this method" <<and i repeat again, there are NO TV SERIES THAT DO CHOOSE THIS METHOD!. Lost did NOT choose this method, a few editors out of many lost editors did. Stargate did choose this method, but have decided it's okay for us to change it. Other wikiprojects/TVseries have said nothing to make us think they chose anything. So it's far more likely a matter of someone did it and everyone else ignored it. --`/aksha 02:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Multiple series did indeed choose this method, including Lost, Star Trek, and Stargate. Further, I'll remind you that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) here said that Star Trek episodes were to use this method, for several months, until Ned Scott started edit-warring and removing that text.[108] --Elonka 03:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please provide links to the discussions where the guidelines for these three exceptions were decided. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Would it make any difference to the situation today? Regardless of how long the exception for Star Trek was in there and how much consensus there was or wasn't, there is clearly no consensus supporting such exceptions today. This has been confirmed by the voting on the move of the Lost episodes where Elonka is one of only two people who oppose those moves. --Serge 05:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• The problem is that WP:LOST project page doesn't indicate how consensus was reached, or between which users, or indeed that there is any. Hence, it is open to claims by others that there is no such consensus. It may be the case that the off-wiki discussion accidentally excluded some people who believe they should have had a say in it (I wouldn't know, I wasn't part the debate). The underlying issue is that Wikipedia cannot be legislated. It is not uncommon for a small group on Wikipedia to decide something and, in implementing it, to come in touch with a larger group that turns out to disagree with the decision. In effect, this means that the small group thought they had consensus when in fact they did not. This is a consequence of the design of Wikipedia, and a corollary is that a WikiProject cannot have jurisdiction over the articles it writes, because the entire concept of jurisdiction doesn't exist here. (Radiant) 11:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)