Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WT:TV-NC
WT:NC-TV
WT:TV-NAME
Archive
Archives
* Archive 1 - June 2003 – August 2004

Contents

[edit] Episodes with the same name in revived series

In cleaning up the Outer Limits episodes, I came across a small curiosity. Several episodes of the original 1963–1965 Outer Limits were remade in the 1995–2002 series: specifically, I, Robot (1964 The Outer Limits) (remade in 1995), Nightmare (1963 The Outer Limits) (remade in 1998)), and The Human Factor (1963 The Outer Limits) (remade in 2002, but doesn't yet have a page). I renamed those pages on the pattern of the only other similar case of which I was aware, The Hand of God (1978 Battlestar Galactica) and The Hand of God (2004 Battlestar Galactica). However, the years used in that case are the years in which the respective Battlestar Galactica series debuted, not when the specific episodes aired (the original "Hand of God" aired in 1979, and the recent one aired in 2005). I thought that the year of actual broadcast made more sense for the Outer Limits episodes, but the disambiguation still seems awkward to me, so I thought I'd raise it here. What do we think is the best way to handle cases like this? (I don't know if there are any others, but there might be, perhaps in animated series which have had multiple incarnations, like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Batman.)

The question is connected with the matter of how best to distinguish television series with the same name. I've never been particularly happy with the use of "initial year" as the disambiguator for an ongoing series or one that ran for several years, but there are cases in which it seems like the least bad option (such as the current Robin Hood series, which can be found at Robin Hood (2006 TV series)). Does anyone have any bright ideas about disambiguating series with the same name, or the specific odd case of episodes with the same name in series of the same name? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Best tp be consistent, if you'll forgive the further abuse of that term. I would recommend using a comma, though. As in The Hand of God (Battlestar Galatica, 2004). Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Convention at the moment does seem to be the use of the debut year for differentiation, and I admit it looks better than the other options, such as using the terms "Original" and "Re-imagined" (both of which are in and of themselves likely to be subject to controversy). The only other possibility would be putting the range of years each series ran, which would look even worse aesthetically and still only give the series, rather than year aired. I wouldn't be adverse to Ace's suggestion, above, though, putting the year second rather than first. --BlueSquadronRaven 08:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What about just The Hand of God (2004 episode)? Personally I like the least amount of disambiguation - in cases where (Battlestar Galactica) doesn't cut it, using the year would. Sure, some of the episodes would use a different disambiguation technique than others but who cares? Back to the original months-old debate, disambiguation is the key, not title aesthetics. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the way it is done with movies (see e.g. Bedazzled) so it seems it would be the most consistent with standard Wikipedia style. -- Chuq 12:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dab vs. non-dab

I'm thinking of splicing the article in disambiguation NC vs. article, cat, template title NC The index would then become something like this:

  1. Terms and Abbreviations: TV vs. television, season vs. series, program vs. programme vs. show vs series
  2. Italics when using a Program name within articles, and quotes for an episode name within articles.
  3. Common names for articles: List of, Characters of, Season 1 of etc
  4. Common names for categories and templates
  5. Dab: mostly current content of the page

I would also like to highlight the "Only dab when necessary"-part by making it bold. Are there any people who think these suggestions are a bad idea ? -- TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We've come to find "necessary" a bit subjective. Try, "don't disambiguate when there is no ambiguity" or "don't disambiguate for aesthetic purposes." Alternately, you could spell it out with, "Don't disambiguate when there is no ambiguity; don't disambiguate for aesthetic purposes. If the name of a series, episode or character is the only known use of that word/phrase/term/title or collection of words, do not disambiguate. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for more information." I fear that this point can never be driving home enough. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
We may want to make sure that the reasonings behind these guidelines are spelled out. I'd like to avoid arguments about changing the guideline from people who don't understand the guideline, such as "It's just a guideline and I think it looks better this way". Jay32183 21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What would you suggest? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure, because the existing guidelines all seem to make sense to me. But I'm sure some one will get confused sometime and complain. The only place in the existing guidelines I could see that confusion arising is the "originating country" for "program vs programme". Some people may interpret that as filming location rather than country of production or country of initial broadcast. I guess for anything else we'll actually have to wait for some one to complain. Jay32183 22:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24 (season 3)

I was looking at the main article and noticed this particular example... Now (season 3) implies a dab within wikipedia article naming usually. However, this isn't really a disambiguation issue is? Shouldn't the article be called Season 3 of 24 or something like that? what do you guys think ? TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"season 3 of 24" sounds a bit like your talking about the 3rd season out of 24 seasons. --`/aksha 01:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This is semantics, and borderline unimportant. I can suggest "24's third season" or "24 season 3", but I really don't see the point. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
In this specific case indeed a slightly different wording of the articlename may be appropriate, but there are more (season #) articles beyond this specific example :D TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Smallville (Season 2) as another example. Smallville season 2 just looks weird for some reason. – Þ  05:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
How about "24 3rd season" / "Smallville 2nd season" ? -- Ned Scott 05:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't think it matters much, and I don't think it's that important for shows to be consistent with each other in this way. I'm fine with how it is now, with parenthesis. The only thing I really care about is that the show title comes first (as opposed to "season 3 of 24"). If it reads funny without parenthesis, what about other punctuation like "24: Season 3" or "24 - Season 3"? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
24 (season 3) looks backwards to me. We aren't talking about the season 3 kind of 24, we're talking about the 24 kind of season 3. If we keep using parentheses I think it should be Season 3 (24). The other suggestions for are good too, except the one that was already pointed out. Jay32183 17:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Each season the name of the series is the same: 24. I suggest 24 - Season 1, 24 - Season 2, etc. or 24 - Day 1, 24 - Day 2, ... --Serge 21:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I like 24: Season 3 or 24, Season 3 most I think. Note that the latter is citation style. Much like "The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Second Edition" when you reference a book. It would be the most official style i guess. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 05:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, what you are anyone else "likes" is not relevant. The question is what is the common/least confusing name. Look it up at Amazon and you will find, 24 - Season Five, etc. --Serge 05:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I renamed them per WP:BOLD. --Serge 05:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
While I'm fine with the renaming, it's not really that clear cut which is the most common/least confusing. The fox 24 website uses Season 6, not "six" (amazon isn't the best source for names although it's a decent second opinion). Sometimes it does come down to what the editors "like" (consensus) - in this case I don't think it really matters as long as people can find the articles (redirects for other versions) and we stick with a decision. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. series - Season Five for instance uses capitals, something which we usually try to avoid. Also ER - Season Twenty-one would probably be less desirable then ER - Season 21TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
We were trying to establish generic guidelines here, not a rename specific to 24. I was trying to find where your rename was, before I figured out that your rename has been undone, because it did not follow the current Naming Conventions. :D Let's try and create a proper guideline first. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to quibble about 24 - Season One vs. 24 - Season 1 (I have a slight preference for the former), but can we at least agree that 24 (season 1) has to go, and that 24 Season One (no dash) is off the table? --Serge 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the big objection to parenthesis? It's what is recommended in the guideline right now and a number of series seem to be using it already. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
My objection is that it's not how each 24 season is generally referred to. I think 24 might be an exception, in that each season is a distinct story. 24 - Season One is actually the name of one story. 24 - Season Two is the name of another distinct story (which has alternate names, including 24 - Season 2 and 24 - Day 2, but generally not 24 (season 2). With most TV series, each episode is a standalone story. With 24 this is really not the case. Watching just one episode of 24 in the middle of a season is like stepping into a movie theatre in the middle of a movie that you've never seen, for 10 minutes. --Serge 18:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If people refer to "24 season 2" I think it's just a matter of taste how it's punctuated. It seems a bit pedantic to insist that "24 (season 2)" is really that different from "24 - season 2" or "24: season 2". All are perfectly clear what the article is referring to and arguably just as likely to be searched for. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about how people commonly refer to it in writing (in articles, reviews, on products, etc.), not when speaking (which is what you seem to be talking about). Also, the use of parenthesis in Wikipedia implies disambiguatory information, and that the name of the subject of the article is outside of the parens. But in this case the season specifier is part of the name of the subject of the article, not additional information added for the purpose of disambiguating from other articles with the same name (which is the case for 24 (TV series), the article about the entire series). --Serge 19:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If your main objection is that it looks like disambig, I'm not sure why you're not proposing changing the guideline and renaming all articles that use (season 3). --Milo H Minderbinder 20:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not proposing a guideline change for all series because I'm not sure that for other series that it's not simply disambiguatory information. I don't think very many people see ER (season 3), for example, as a distinct story/entity in the way that 24 - Season Three is most definitely a distinct story/entity. I suspect distinguishing 24 from other series where the seasonal division of episodes is more for arbitrary temporal reasons than story cohesion reasons (that do apply in the case of each 24 season) makes sense. --Serge 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm just not buying that it's anything more than an aesthetic preference. Anyone else want to weigh in? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well if you read the first part of the discussion "I was looking at the main article and noticed this particular example... Now (season 3) implies a dab within wikipedia article naming usually. However, this isn't really a disambiguation issue is? Shouldn't the article be called Season 3 of 24 or something like that? what do you guys think ? " Then yes it's about the fact that this implies Dab, and we should change the guideline and use some other aesthetic pleasing and readable form of doing this. Everybody so far seems to agree on that part, it's the exact form that's under debate (at least that was my impression). TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Milo, have you ever watched 24? The reason I ask, and why it's relevant, is that it might be difficult to appreciate how a 24 season is distinct from most other TV series seasons if you've never watched it (and I don't mean an episode here and there). --Serge 21:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. I don't disagree that the seasons of 24 are more distinctly separated than most shows. I just don't agree that it warrants a different style of punctuation than other shows. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
And, so, you don't seem to fully appreciate the significance of the difference. Hence my question: have you ever watched 24? --Serge 21:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I've seen every episode. I fully appreciate the significiance of the difference between seasons. I just don't agree that a difference in punctuation indicates anything beyond a difference in punctuation. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, there is some truth to your objection. In order to really convey the difference we should probably name the articles 24 - Day One, and so forth. --Serge 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I oppose to 24 - Day one And i tell you why. It's a type of designation that is too topic specific. You need to have SEEN the show and even then you need to be so into it that you understand that a "Day" in 24 terms corresponds to a Season in normal Television world. I dare say you could consider it as 24-slang.. It's confusing and without need. It can perfectly well be explained within the article and I believe already is. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
What is so difficult to comprehend? Each season has its own name... Day One, Day Two, etc. That is the name of each season. As long as each article explains it, which they do, it adds clarity. I've made a Requested Move accordingly. We can debate it at Talk:24 (season 1). --Serge 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think his objection is that a casual reader who is unfamiliar with the show might not understand that Day One means season one. Season One is going to be clear to everyone. I'm not sure why you think it's so important that the title convey that seasons are more contained than they are on other shows - can't the articles themselves get that across? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Anything that can be easily explained in the first sentence of an article is not much of a concern, if you ask me. 24 (season 1) would still redirect to the article. I think naming the 24 seasons just like any normal TV series is actually disinformative, if you will. It's more effective to answer a question that the name itself raises, rather than raise the question and provide the answer in the text itself. A casual reader is more likely to miss the latter. --Serge 23:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parentheses have a substantive difference

I don't particularly care about these particular shows, but the people making these arguments ought to be aware that there is one way in which using parentheses is not "mere pedantry" with respect to other options. There is an actual, substantive difference in the way they can be used in links, based on the way our software is set up. For example, if you use [[Smallville (season 2)|]], what you see is Smallville (look on the normal page, not the edit page). Gene Nygaard 13:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Little Rascals (TV series) --> The Little Rascals (animated TV series)

When this naming convention was first set in place, this article was moved to The Little Rascals (animated TV series). Psychonaut3000 (talk · contribs) saw fit (twice) to move to article to The Little Rascals (TV series), a confusing title considering people would very likely wonder why the article isn't about the live-action Little Rascals series (that series is properly covered at Our Gang). I propose to move the article back to The Little Rascals (animated TV series) for the sake of directness. PS: I read the blurb above about not posting move requests here, but if I posted this on the article's talk page, it would go very much unnoticed. --FuriousFreddy 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We do the same thing at WP:ANIME with many shows, where they are "Show Title (anime)" rather than "Show Title (TV series)" to help avoid the confusion between live-action versions (which are increasing for anime). I think it's about time this page reflect that type of logical exception for animated shows. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me in this sort of case. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two episodes with the same title

What do I do if there are two shows that have the same episode title? Both Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) and Yu-Gi-Oh! GX have episodes titled "The Darkness Within". The TMNT one was made first, but do I put (TMNT 2003 episode) on the side of it? "The Darkness Within" will redirect there still... Matty-chan 12:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Both those episodes already have articles, The Darkness Within and The Darkness Within (Yu-Gi-Oh! GX) so you don't need to do anything. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, unless there's an argument I'm unaware of saying that the TMNT episode is the primary meaning of "The Darkness Within", I'd say that the TMNT episode should be moved to The Darkness Within (TMNT 2003 episode) and The Darkness Within should become a disambiguation page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think there's a need for that. I'd always thought disambiguation was only used when there was more than 3 items. If there's only two items, then don't we just use disambiguation links at the top of the article (the "this article is about...for the...see...etc line)? --`/aksha 10:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I generally agree. In the current setup, 50 percent of the people that type "The Darkness Within" in the search box will go immediately where they want. The other 50% will need to make one click to get where they want. With a two-item dab page, everyone will have to click once after the search. I always prefer dablinks over dab pages by default, esp. with only two items in question. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I just made The Darkness Within (TMNT 2003 episode) a redirect to The Darkness Within, as suggested by our guideline. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I was actually thinking that "The Darkness Within"'s primary meaning shouldn't be a TMNT episode, especially since the other meaning is an episode of another show. But I guess it would work if someone did want the GX episode they could click it. But if something else called "The Darkness Within" turns up, we should make a disambiguation page. Matty-chan 14:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No doubt. And, if you really think there's a 50-50 split, this wouldn't be the first ever two-item dab page. Just stating my personal preference.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Arbitration Committee has spoken...

...and the arbitration case relating to this convention has closed. The Committee has found that a consensus was reached to disambiguate episode titles according to the general principles at Wikipedia:Disambiguation (that is, not to place suffixes indicating the series after episode titles, unless there is another article that would share the name). The Committee has also ordered that administrators participating in discussion should close completed policy discussions, so accordingly I am announcing that the discussion of the episode titling guideline is closed. As the Committee noted, the discussion following the poll held in November reached a consensus; the guideline page already reflects the decision reached. Details of the discussion can be found in the archives of this page, beginning here and continuing here, here, here and here (whew!). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

An official declaration for what most of knew two months ago. How unfortunate. Thanks Josiah. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank goodness! I have a nice bottle of cider I'm going to drink in celebration now.--BlueSquadronRaven 20:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It's finally over. Glorious. To that end, I think you all will be seeing less of me here. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto here. I was even thinking of finally taking this thing of my watchlist. But it's been floating at the top of my watchlist for so long i think i'd miss seeing it there. =P --`/aksha 09:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to again point out that concensus can change, and this topic will almost undoubtly be brought up again. I'd also like to point out that the Arbitration never touched the real issue, the apparent ownership of articles by this wikiproject, and the interaction of this wikiproject with other projects that came to different naming conventions than you did. EnsRedShirt 09:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not a WikiProject. It is a centralized location for discussion of Wikipedia guidelines, open to any Wikipedian. As such, it takes a wider view than any WikiProject can or should. In her evidence, Elonka did raise the issue of WikiProjects which had previously established different naming patterns. I hazard that the fact that the Arbitration Committee affirmed the consensus reached on this page, and did not see fit to mention the guidelines developed by WikiProjects, may be interpreted as a validation of the perspective that WikiProjects are subject to guidelines established by the larger community. Now, the members of affected WikiProjects were invited to join the discussion here on several occasions, and many of those members did so. Their contributions were and still are welcome.
You are, of course, correct that consensus can change — however, I hope that if and when this topic rears its head again, it is with a fresh perspective and fresh arguments, rather than recycling the ones that failed to gain any traction before.
Also, if you felt that ownership issues were the "real issue" in the dispute, you should have mentioned it while the case was open. You can hardly blame the arbitrators for not addressing an issue which wasn't even raised. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
As why I didn't participate in the arbitration the format of the proceedings was confusing to me at best, which page should I go to, should it be a talk page or the main case etc.. I hope that the process may get streamlined in the future. Thank you for the link you left on my talk page. EnsRedShirt 10:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There's some discussion of the implementation of the case at WP:AN#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions, which may be of interest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am glad of this :) Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Season one

Seemingly a spinoff of the 24 discussion above and on the 24 pages, Serge has redirected (and in most cases created) articles like Season One‎ to point to the respective season of 24. It seems like an odd choice since there are hundreds if not thousands of shows with a Season One. This especially seems questionable in cases where there were already articles with that name (without disambiguation) such as Season One (Suburban Legends) and Season 5 (album). The logical solutions seem to either make huge redirect lists on each, or just not have articles with those names (especially since doing that would be an obvious redlink if someone did that by accident). At least one artlcle of this sort was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Season 2 Opinions? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when is it an "odd choice" to redirect a name in Wikipedia to the article that that name is clearly most commonly used to refer to?
I did not create articles; I created redirects for the seasons that were missing. There is no other TV series besides 24 for which each of its seasons are nearly or as commonly known and as often referred to as Season One, Season Two, etc. The name Season One is much more commonly used to refer to the first season of the series 24 than it is used to refer to the DVD by Suburban Legends, which is little known. The name Season 5 is much more commonly used to refer to the fifth season of the series 24 than it is used to refer to the little known album. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Season 2, that had to do with a different TV series with little known seasons. Speaking of season two, consider these google results:
Results 1 - 20 of about 1,150,000 English pages for "season two" 24.
Results 1 - 20 of about 1,210,000 English pages for "season two" -24
Note that references to season two of 24 are almost equal to the total number of references to "season two" that does not include 24. For season five, the number of references to 24's season 5 actually outnumber the combination of all non-24 references to "season 5":
Results 1 - 20 of about 619,000 English pages for "season five" 24
Results 1 - 20 of about 471,000 English pages for "season five" -24
Since anyone searching for "season 5" (or "season 1" or "season two", etc.) is most likely to be searching for the corresponding season of 24, it seems pretty logical to me to have those names redirect to the corresponding 24 seasons... No? --Serge 23:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It's an odd choice when there isn't one that's clearly the most commonly used, and potentially hundreds it could apply to. And google isn't the best test for this, particularly since your searches won't just find articles about the show 24, but about other shows that mention the number 24 (episode 24, age 24, 24th of the month, times that include the number etc). --Milo H Minderbinder 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you disagree that it's relatively unusual to talk about particular seasons of any TV series? Tell me, what did you think of Seinfelds's 3rd season as compared to their 5th? Did you think Mary Ann was more believable in the first or second season of Gilligan's Island? How often do you hear such questions? But when it comes to 24, it all about the seasons. Each one is a distinct entity that is commonly and often referred to independently. Do you really disagree? If you don't like my google results, then consider:
Results 1 - 20 of about 164,000 English pages for "season two" sutherland
Can you find any TV series star whose relatively unique last name, with "season two", produces even half of this 164k count for "season two" combined with "sutherland"? --Serge 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I do disagree that it's unusual to talk about seasons (and even if it were unusual, 24 certainly wouldn't be the only show). Google results vary depending on what you search for (and Kiefer isn't the only sutherland out there). Searching for "season 2" sutherland=294,000, "season 2" longoria=579,000, "season 2" aniston=750,000. Are we going to do searches for each season for every popular show we can think of and assign different redirects and different seasons to different shows? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I consider this being a WP:POINT by this 24 fanboy that goes by the name of Serge. He should be careful because this is the stuff that gets people blocked at one point. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. Although I think it is a bit strange to assume "Season One" is strongly associated with the show 24, Serge seems honest in his reasoning. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he's using good faith, but the end result is a bit ridiculous. It's like making beverage a redirect to Coke. Whether it gets the most google hits or not, it's POV and not what the average user is going to expect to find. Ned, do you favor the new redirects? What's the best way to handle this if they get reverted - delete them or redirect them to something else (like maybe Television season)? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm just saying I don't think it's a violation of WP:POINT, a specific response to DJ's message. As far as the issue itself, I agree with you (Milo). -- Ned Scott 22:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this. Until 24, I never heard or read anyone refer to particular seasons of shows as "Season Number". If anything, the terminology used would be something like, in the first season. I'm not saying that Season One, Season Two, ... etc., is never used with respect to other shows, but that it's much less common. With 24, it's extremely common. Whether it's at the water cooler at work, an article in TV guide, a review at Amazon, or even a photo caption in Wikipedia (see 24 (season 1)), the terminology is very common with respect to discussion about 24. Anyway, if you want to request that the redirects be moved, feel free to submit an RM. As to what readers would expect, who other than someone looking for the article about a particular season of 24 would even think to search for Season Three, for example? In other words, the name given to the 3rd season of 24 is Season Three. For most other TV series, individual seasons are simply not named. --Serge 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting more and more ridiculous. "Season two" is used for virtually every show. And "Season two" is the name given to the second season of every show, that's not remotely unique to 24. People searching for "season three" could be looking for any of hundreds of shows, only someone with blinders on would even imagine any significant number were all looking for the same show. At this point I'm trying to figure out what the best course of action is. I'd appreciate input from other editors - what would be better, put the redirects up for deletion, or change the redirects to point to something else (not an RM, I assume would end up with a nasty revert war). Opinions? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Milo on this. Maybe the lack of episode title names or any other "title" for 24 leads people to only being able to use "Season X" as a title, but it's not actually a "name". -- Ned Scott 00:19, 31 January

2007 (UTC)

The term most commonly used to refer to an entity is its name, by definition. The thing about 24 that distinguishes it from other TV series is that each season is a complete highly cohesive story. In fact, few if any 24 episodes stand alone as coherent stories - they are out of context, like a few scenes in the middle of a movie. So, in 24, a season is something that is not in other TV series. That's what makes each 24 season more significant than the season of any other TV series, and why the name (Season One, or whatever), is more commonly used to refer to a 24 season than to seasons of other shows: simply because seasons of other shows are not distinct entitities the way 24 seasons are. --Serge 17:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, probably since the beginning of the proliferation of TV DVDs (though perhaps even earlier), I've found myself referring to individual seasons of almost every show by number. I don't think a redirect from "Season One" to 24 (season 1) is appropriate. Incidentally, I refer to 24 seasons more often as "days", but that's probably not standard usage. 24 may be referred to by season more often than other shows, but without the show title, "Season One" does not refer to that particular show to a significantly large portion of the population. --Fru1tbat 17:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
But what a name refers to for a "significantly large portion of the population" is not the criteria we use. There are countless articles (not to mention redirects) that do not meet that criteria. The criteria that is relevant is: of those that commonly use the term, is there any meaning in particular that is more likely to be referenced than all the others? I agree that Day N is also a name commonly used to refer to a 24 season, but that just supports my point that 24 is different from other TV series. In 24, each season, since it is a distinct cohesive story, is much more often refererred to as an entity in the first place (regardless of what name is used to refer to it) than are seasons of other TV series. In other words, since seasons of typical TV series are not distinct entities with cohesive stories, references to them as distinct entities are much more obscure (though not non-existent) as compared to seasons of 24. --Serge 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought "of those that commonly use the term" went more or less without saying. The scope of this discussion is people searching for a term on Wikipedia. I'll try to be more explicit in the future. In any case, that individual seasons of 24 are more cohesive than other shows is irrelevant. We're dealing with an ambiguous term ("Season One"), and you're recommending redirecting it to a specific article. According to WP:DAB#Primary topic, this should only be done "when there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other" (emphasis theirs). That's what my comment was referring to. "Season One" is not commonly used out of context without the show name to refer to "24 season one", and therefore is not a "well-known primary meaning" for it. Most users looking for "24 season 1" would type in that entire phrase, or just "24". Most would not type just "season 1", and those that do could be looking for a number of different shows, many of them with fairly distinct seasonal plots (Buffy, for example?). --Fru1tbat 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFD

I've submitted the Season 2 batch of redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 31. Have at it. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I did, and the early results don't look good for Serge. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The early results look fine for me. They don't look good for those redirects that I created though! ;-) --Serge 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback/Assistance Needed (Heroes episode)

I request that members of this project please assist me. According to the television episode naming conventions, "For an article created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name". A recent episode of Heroes entitled "Run!" currently has its article located at Run! (Heroes). Since there is no article at "Run!", per the guidelines, the "(Heroes)" is unnecessary, is it not? However, people are opposing a move on the article's talk page. Some people are arguing that the article SHOULD have the "(Heroes)" after it just in case sometime down the road another episode gets the same title. This is not correct either, yes? I would appreciate any help clarifying this on the talk page, if you could please help. Thanks -Seinfreak37 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be a number of editors who don't understand the policy voting on this one, with reasons like the disambig should be there to explain what the article is about, or "plan ahead" since in the future something else might have that title. Other voices would be appreciated. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In the future it's best not to actively ask for support on a guideline page, this may be considered by some to be advocating. Asking for opinions is usually better. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House M.D.

Talk:House_(TV_series)#Requested_move. Matthew

[edit] "telemovie"

If someone with a bit more expertise in the TV naming conventions could take a look at the title of these:

It appears that #1 was just an individual programme and #2 was a failed pilot. Not sure how either of them should actually be titled, but tele-movie just don't seem to make it! SkierRMH 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"TV movie" seems like it would be better, because that's something people actually say. Jay32183 03:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

What is the established convention for capitalisation of television episode titles? Do we capitalise all words except articles, conjunctions, and short prepositions (per convention) or do we look at the written title from the piece of work itself (e.g. title on screen or on DVD release cases, etc.?). I was having a dicussion at User talk:JBK405 about this and realised that I couldn't find a Wikipedia convention for this.

Thanks,

Acegikmo1 18:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I would use the convention rather than the written title, because written title are often all caps for artistic purposes. Jay32183 00:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking. It would also make it easier to achieve consistency. Is there some procedure to make this a policy? Acegikmo1

[edit] Question about 'The' capitalization

I was going to move Heathcliff (DiC series) to it's more appropriate name, Heathcliff and the Catillac Cats. The things is, just as I was about to do that, I noticed that on the DVD cover, it's listed as Heathcliff and The Catillac Cats. I know standard usage is to have a lower case t in the unless it's the first word, but in this case, it seems to note that the show features 'Heathcliff' and 'The Catillac Cats'. So, should this 'The' be capitalized? -Joltman 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In looking in a little more, that wasn't the official title, so I instead moved it to Heathcliff (1984 TV series). I'll leave this here in case someone else has a similar question. -Joltman 13:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It could have been Heathcliff and The Catillac Cats, as in there are tow title being presented at once. Jay32183 18:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy the Vampire Slayer

There is a discussion over at Buffy the Vampire Slayer over the name of the article. Some people feel the article should be named as it is, while the competing opinion is that it should be named Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), per naming conventions. The film with the same title has "(film)" attached, and it came first. Please see the discussion at Talk: Buffy the Vampire Slayer#Page move.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a fair summary as the conventions say "If the title of the television program is the most common usage of the phrase, let it be the title of the article; for example, The Apprentice or Guiding Light." This must currently apply to Buffy as Buffy the Vampire Slayer redirects to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series).
Please note that the discussion has been reactivated at Talk:Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_(TV_series)#Move_over_redirect_request; background info here. --kingboyk (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters from TV shows

Are there any guidelines for naming articles on characters in TV shows? (in instances where disambiguation is required; e.g. Buffy Summers is fine because the full name is available; Angel isn't).

If there aren't, I think there should be a section here. My feeling is that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) should mostly apply (firstname lastname) but when disambiguation is needed the word "character" should be included to distinguish from TV episodes, e.g. Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer character). Thoughts? --kingboyk (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curiosity with TV naming conventions

I have always wondered... with various other forms of media, we use (film), (album), (book), (song), or (TV series) and so on to disambiguate. In other words, a common noun that describes what the entity is. Additional details (year of the film, artist of the album/song, etc) are only used if further clarification is needed. Going by that same pattern, we should use (episode), (character) to disambiguate between episodes and characters, but we don't - we usually just use the name of the television show. I'm wondering - why is that? Is it just for historical reasons - it was done that way before the convention was in place and it is too time-consuming to change?

The table below illustrates the difference. Shouldn't we be using the format in the left hand column for consistency? Of course, if there is more than one album, song, episode, etc with that name we would then add the artist/show/etc. but on the first instance, "(episode)" or "(character)" should be used.

Type Disambiguated with common name Disambiguated with artist/show/etc
Album Dangerous (album) Dangerous (Michael Jackson)
Song Yesterday (song) Yesterday (The Beatles)
Yesterday (Help!)
TV series Heroes (TV series) Heroes (NBC)
Heroes (Tim Kring)
Heroes (2006)
Film Unbreakable (film) Unbreakable (M. Night Shyamalan)
Unbreakable (2000)
Episode Left Behind (episode) Left Behind (Lost)
Character John Rowland (character) John Rowland (Desperate Housewives)

What made me realise this was the article James Ellison (Terminator), which is about a character in Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, but the name makes it look like the article is about a Terminator (obviously a fictional one, but the character is a regular human being).

Of course if there is more than one film or episode or album, etc. the name can be disambiguated further as per current conventions.

There are other benefits - some TV show names do not make a very good disambiguator by themselves. If you see (24), (House), (Lost), (Medium) or (Oz) at the end of an article name, it isn't always clear that it is about a part of a television show. -- Chuq (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems there is "Pilot". Every pilot episode would be "name of series" episode, because they are all episodes. You also get more out of disambiguators when you pay attention to capitalization. Parenthetical disambiguation in article titles always start with lower case letters, unless they are proper nouns. There is a difference between "House" and "house", although I don't see why one would use "house" rather than "building". Do we have houses and castles with the same name often? Also, disambiguation isn't to tell us what the article is about, but to tell us what makes it different from other things with the same name. Article titles are supposed to be as simple as possible. Using a disambiguation term that applies to multiple things doesn't aid searching and makes the title unnecessarily long. Anytime the parentheticals can be avoided they should be. For instance Turanga Leela is better than Leela (Futurama) or Leela (character). Basically, we want to keep things simple, rather than to make everything the same. If the names are available, you may create redirects that are as complicated as you like if you think it will aid searches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay32183 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pilot episodes - that's ok, we can name them all Pilot (Lost episode) etc - nothing wrong with that. We don't rename all the songs named One to end in (bandname) instead of (bandname song) just because there are lots of them.
  • I'm aware of the capitalisation rules, but not everyone is.
  • Yes article titles are supposed to be simple - doesn't this mean they should be predictably named? A shorter name isn't always deemed simpler, otherwise we should move Heroes (TV series) to Heroes (NBC), for example.
What I'm basically asking is why don't the rules that apply to the rest of Wikipedia (including movies, music and books) apply to TV episode/character articles? -- Chuq (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you are right. Using your example, James Ellison (Terminator) should be renamed to James Ellison (character). If there are more than one, it should be James Ellison (Terminator character). Just my opinion. - LA @ 11:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I was saying avoid having to do Pilot (series name episode) because the word episode is meaningless. It would appear on every one of them. Pilot (Smallville) and Pilot (House) are clearly different. Adding the word "episode" doesn't help at all. People not being aware of capitalization rules is no reason to change conventions. This is a color of the bikeshed issue. Unless there is a major reason with huge consensus to change it, we shouldn't bother. We'd end up having a discussion that doesn't really matter every couple months when there are much more serious issues to deal with. Like should the episodes and characters actually have articles. Does it matter what the articles name is when it's supposed to be deleted/transwikied for not having sources? The only reason to change the convention with television episodes and characters is conformity, which is not a good reason. Jay32183 (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Season article naming

I've been BOLD and added a section about naming articles for seasons. This is based on the generally consistent use I've seen around. Please have at it if there any problems with this. (Also, do we want to make things more consistent with this? lower or upper case on the word "season" in parathesis? Season number as a number or spelled out? ) --MASEM 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anime TV series

There's some anime TV series, like Gungrave (anime) and Mononoke (anime), that disambiguate by adding "(anime)" instead "(TV series)" as recommended by this naming convention. I think they should be moved (e.g. Gungrave (TV series) and Mononoke (TV series)), the same way Justice League (animated series) and Gargoyles (animated series) have been moved. What do you think?--Nohansen (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an on-going discusson on this already at WT:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)