Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.
Archive
Archives
* Archive 1 - June 2003 – August 2004

Contents

Vote on whether to adopt Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)

This straw poll is to determine the naming convention for television programming, specifically but not necessarily limited to the primary disambiguator for the titles of television programming articles. The goal of this poll is to achieve consensus, or failing that a sizeable majority vote, in as harmonious manner as possible.

This poll begins at 00:00, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC) and ends at 00:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC). At that time, the votes YES and NO will be tallied, and the result will be posted on the relevant pages and on Wikipedia:Announcements. In case of a tie or a slight (less than 2/3) majority, the poll will be extended in increments of 1 week until decided.

As of 00:42, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC), the vote is Yes=4 & No=7, and 1 unsigned. The poll is extended and now ends at 00:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC).
The current system time is 2008-06-11 16:55 UTC

The Question

Should Wikipedia adopt Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)?

During this vote, the content of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) should not be changed, except in the case of minor edits to correct grammar or spelling. For reference, the version being decided upon was updated last at 02:10, 20 Aug 2004.

When voting, please sign with your name and timestamp (by inserting "~~~~") under the most appropriate heading. Anonymous user and sock puppet votes will not be counted.

Votes

YES, it should be adopted

  1. Rlandmann 04:01, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

YES, but further discussion on some points is needed (specify)

  1. Netoholic 00:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC) -- Some comments have been raised about UK v. USA programming terms. Probably should revisit it.
  2. The convention happens to be the way I would have written it, but it makes sense to replace "TV" with "television" to avoid future objections.  – Lee J Haywood 19:17, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 15:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) - Rename miniseries to mini-series. TV movie is not neutral (movie is very US-centric), an alternative of using "TV film" or "TV special" would be appropriate.

NO, but some points should be retained (specify)

NO, all aspects of the written convention need to be re-discussed

  1. I don't like the idea of "TV" anything. Television is much better, IMO. Mike H 23:07, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  2. This survey/poll is premature (see Wikipedia:Survey guidelines), and more discussion is needed. --Michael Snow 01:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Agreed, more discussion is needed, and probably a poll to select among the several possibilities. --Arteitle 04:09, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Sean Curtin 05:30, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC) - actually voting "Other: current naming convention is technically invalid".
  5. I don't have a great problem with the convention, but think there was insufficient discussion and no real consensus. -- Avaragado 08:01, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Insufficient discussion. -- Arwel 18:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. I already voted for "television". There is no justification to add "series", "program" etc. if only one show is to be disambiguated from non-television subjects. If a second-level of disambiguation is necessary, I say use the date, as in Cinderella (1957 television).
  8. Looks like the convention currently up for acceptance [1] doesn't match what the majority voted for in the archive. I also think it's particularly telling that we're voting on "Naming conventions (television)" as opposed to "Naming convetions (TV program)," etc. --Rossumcapek 18:25, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments

This is utterly ludicrous. We do not need 20 days to vote on whether an issue that was "decided" in 10 days, is acceptable or not? There was no close date on the previous "straw poll". The so-called "consensus" policy that was adopted has since been over-taken by events. The last time I looked, before the previous content of this page was expunged, the votes alotted to the so-called "policy" did not have the most votes. This current poll is totally invalid. We should be starting with a clean sheet. I should also point out that the method used to archive the previous content of this page is incorrect. In moving the old page we have lost the history. I will be rectifying the situation by deleting this page, moving the page back to here, and then copying the archived material back to the archive page. Mintguy (T) 23:50, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In response to the criticism that the previous informal straw poll did not achieve consensus, this one was drafted to decide the fate only of the current written convention. Failing that, a new one can be written "from scratch" with as much discussion/voting is needed. This is the proper course of action. Why can't the issue wait 3 weeks? What hurry is Wikipedia in that this can't happen. -- Netoholic 00:00, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The written convention is no such thing and you know it. Quite frankly I'm disgusted. I've got no more to say on the matter. Mintguy (T) 00:03, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it is not convention until consensus is reached. In a few of your opinions the previous informal poll and discusstion does not satisfy that. I think it does. Either way, this simple vote will decide it. Please work with the community rather than targeting its members. -- Netoholic 00:06, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this particular straw poll is seriously flawed, perhaps even more so than the previous poll in the archived talk. For example, the most common existing practice (and currently the most popular choice in the previous poll) is not even being considered as an option. Nor has there been adequate discussion about what options to consider, or how best to resolve issues like TV vs. television or regional differences in naming.

As a result, this straw poll feels very much like an attempt to force an up-or-down vote for one individual perspective on the issue, without allowing time for an appropriate consensus process. I note that the page for the convention itself has basically been edited by only one user, is a recent creation, and has not received much input from the community. This shows me that more discussion and collaboration is needed before any kind of formal policy can be set. --Michael Snow 01:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am concerned with the votes and comments placed so far -- it appears that some people are voting not based on the convention's merits, but because there is a perceived need to "start from scratch". If you believe its a good document and it agrees, at least mostly, with your preferred naming scheme, vote Yes. Don't vote No just because you think that's what the group wants. -- Netoholic 12:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have removed vote for "NO, but some points should be retained". This is the comment that I made with my vote:

I think that the namning convention is a good one, but it doesn't seem like it's been properly discussed. On the previous poll "television" has the most votes, so I can't see why we're voting on whether or not to accept this convention as final.

Netoholic is probably right about the unwiseness of voting contrary (sort of anyway) to what I really feel. However, looking in the archives, "television" had 8 votes and "TV series" had 5, so it seems more reasonable to pitch these two conventions against each other. I am however unfamiliar with the Wikipedia voting procedures, so I will not vote at all until I am sure what a "yes" would mean. Is saying "yes, adopt this policy" equivialent to "yes, I like this policy"? – Foolip 13:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • The two were already pitched against each other, both in an informal straw poll and in previous discussions. This convention was written on Aug 19th based on the comments made on this page up to that date (last on Aug 17th. On that date, the majority opinion was to use "TV" over "television" and to distinguish between episodic "series", "movie", and single episode "program"s.
    All of the subsequent negative opinions came after the convention was written. Rather than really evaluate it on its own merits, some (initially very few) editors dissented and wanted a complete point-by-point re-evaluation.
    A vote "Yes" means that Wikipedia adopts the written convention for now. Obviously, specific elements may change and evolve over time, but it will form the basis. If you like that basis, vote "Yes". -- Netoholic (Talk) 16:24, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Well it's pretty obvious that most people are either unhappy with what it says at the moment, or would like the chance to discuss alternatives. What we have above looks a bit like a communist election. Vote for current President, or not. That's your choice. Jooler

This is absurd

I see no good reason to continue this absurd poll. I suggest we scrap it and continue with the proposal I made on here before the previous contents were deleted. i.e. that we start afresh with a clean sheet and publicize it properly. Please see previous content and discussions here Mintguy (T) 18:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Process stalled

Twenty days is an unusually long vote time; particularly for a mere ratification poll of fairly unimportant naming convention. Given that eight people already want to re-discuss the issue, I think there is little value in continuing the ratification, and we should "re-open the field", as it were.

Here is a mechanism for deciding the naming convention.

  1. Each alternative is listed
  2. Each alternative has a pros and cons section
  3. Each alternative has a further discussion section
  4. Each alternative has a voting section
  5. Each interested wikipedian can vote in favour of as many proposals as they find acceptable, (i.e. it is an approval vote, not a first-past-the-post vote - this makes consensus building much more possible)
  6. Any wikipedian can vote at any time. If another proposal comes along, then you are allowed to withdraw old vote(s) and vote for the new one if you wish.
  7. Announcement of vote should be given on announcements, pump and goings-on to give vote validity.
  8. Tentative: Opinions from the previous straw poll, and from the discussion of Summer 2003 should be counted - issues have not changed. Their votes will be listed but marked.
  9. The poll will end after a period of "stability" - five days without change in the most acceptable option. (As usual sockpuppet votes will be discounted for this purpose).

I'll layout all the options that have been suggested tomorrow unless

  1. Someone points out a glaring error in this decision process
  2. Someone beats me too it (prefered option :) )

Pcb21| Pete 10:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Another poll - Why?

THIS POLL IS CURRENTLY INACTIVE and is kept for historical reasons. Please do not add comments here. There is an ongoing poll to determine the television naming convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)/poll.

One particular user, who has managed to gain something of a reputation for trying to enact unilateral decisions, has tried to usurp the consensus approach of joint decision-making that is usually employed on Wikipedia. The details in respect of this can be viewed in the history and archives of this page.

The poll that was formerly on this page, was instigated by that user, in order to endorse a policy written by that user, with a deadline set by that user, with a criterion of what constitutes a consensus defined by that user. Despite a large number of people opposed to the adoption of that policy without further discussion, that user decided to instigate the aforementioned poll. I am myself taking the unusual step of unilaterally declaring that the poll instigated by that user for this page is invalid. In its place I am instigating a new poll that will allow all views to be discussed, and voted on, as per normal procedure. I will be publicising this poll on the Village Pump and at Wikipedia:Current_surveys. If anyone would care to invite users who may have opinions on this matter to come to this page by any other means then please do so.

As part of the process of attempting to make this a fair procedure I will be contacting all those users who voted, or expressed an opinion on this page in all of its previous incarnations. i.e. the following users:

If any of those users fail to respond on this page, I think we should assume that their previous vote (if they made one) stands, but in light of the new broader options, I think we should allow everybody a chance to change their vote before assuming that their old vote holds.

For the moment I am not going to state a deadline, I believe that we should agree to a deadline through discussion and I would like to hear opinions of what people think that the deadline should be and what criteria should be used for accepting any particular proposal.

I am appealing to all users to behave with respect to the wishes of other users and to allow all users to express their opinions on the detailed proposals below. I am also appealing to all users to assist in the policing of this poll. If you feel that the poll below is an appropriate and fair method of achieving the goal of generating a naming convention for television programming articles, then please sign under approve below. If you feel that the current poll is not appropriate method of achieving the goal of this page then please sign under disapprove. If you vote 'disapprove' then please add your justification and your suggestions for alternative methods of gaining a consensus. Mintguy (T) 16:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Approve:

  • Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:17, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • zoney ▓   ▒ talk 17:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Arteitle 18:40, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Effective, if a tad confusing? Mike H 18:40, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • I approve of the efforts by Mintguy, and believe the poll can help us work towards a consensus naming convention, so I put myself down here. That being said, I do not believe this can be a final binding vote, only guidance to help us assess community opinion, and expect that more discussion will be necessary. --Michael Snow 00:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • After some more consideration I think that the structure of this poll is acceptable. Even though it does not separate the question of TV/television from any the question of other qualifiers we might want to use, it can have all the options a split structure could have, just in a little more space. My original thoughts are in the comments section. – Foolip 13:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disapprove:

  • -- orthogonal 21:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) I'm not a fan of Netoholic (as I've made very clear on his Talk page), but when Mintguy writes with no apparent irony that "[Netoholic] has managed to gain something of a reputation for trying to enact unilateral decisions" so Mintguy is "taking the unusual step of unilaterally declaring that the poll instigated by that user for this page is invalid", after engaging in an edit war on this very page and then banning Netoholic for also edit warring, I have to wonder why Mintguy just didn't vote against Netoholic's poll and open his own on another page.
    • I was not specific about the "user" mentioned above I was trying to be reasonably fair about this, but that user's option has already been voted down twice. Mintguy (T) 23:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Sean Curtin 23:29, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) Unsurprisingly, I prefer my version of the poll, and more importantly find this ad hoc version to be almost as poorly developed and unilateral as Netoholic's own. A poll that reiterates a controversial poll shouldn't have voting started without at least some peer review.
    • A "more developed" version of this poll was deemed to be too confusing, so I simplified it. Mintguy (T)

Proposals

Firstly it should be pointed out that the standard convention for disambiguation is that disambiguation should ONLY be used when it is absolutely necessary. Thus when there is no possibility of confusion, such as with Coronation Street and Fawlty Towers for example, parenthesised disambiguation should not be used at all.

Users are invited to add advantages and disadvantages to each of the proposals and add additional options as the see fit, but please do not clutter this section with discussion, please keep discussion limited to the discussion section provided.

This poll is open, when it closes is a matter for debate. Please discuss below. Please vote for ans many options as you wish. Multiple votes will be treated equally. Mintguy (T) 23:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1 : Ad-hoc

Disambiguation formats should be decided on a case by case basis, with no standard convention. This is pretty much the situation we have at the moment. This would include (not withstanding the above note) things like [[Coronation Street (soap opera)]] or [[Fawlty Towers (situation comedy)]], but these would live alongside things such as [[Friends (sit-com)]] and [[Seinfeld (television show)]] etc..

  • Advantages: (please add)
    • It's an easy "policy" to follow.
  • Disadvantages (please add)
    • Article titles lose "guessability".
    • Inconsistencies are annoying for editors and for readers.
    • There's nothing to stop different users constantly moving pages from one thing to another.

2 : Categorization

That is all sit-coms requiring disambiguation should use parenthesised 'sit-com' or 'situation comedy' or whatever is decided by the community as appropriate and we should agree on standard classification for other types of programming e.g. documentary, current affairs drama etc.. This option would need further discussion as to what we should use for each category of programming, including whether the specific use of TV and television is necessary. It should be noted that it is currently Wikipedia policy that disambiguation SHOULD NOT be used for categorization, but solely for disambiguation.

  • Advantages: (please add)
  • Disadvantages (please add)

3: TV

Example [[Friends (TV)]]

  • Advantages: (please add)
  • Disadvantages (please add)
    • Title may give the incorrect impression that Friends is a type of TV, rather than something broadcast on TV.
    • possible confusion with other meanings of TV.

4: TV show

Example [[Friends (TV show)]]

  • Advantages: (please add)
    • "Show" eliminates distinction between British and American spelling (program/me) in titles.
  • Disadvantages (please add)

5: TV program AE and TV programme BE

Example [[Friends (TV program)]] and [[Coupling (TV programme)]]

  • Advantages: (please add)
  • Disadvantages (please add)
    • Some program(me)s are remade in the other locale, but with the same title. Which word form do they use?
      • The article about the remake takes the new locale's suffix. The generic title sticks with the original suffix.
    • Same objection as with 9 below -- confusing to those who won't know which one to use.

6: TV ....

I.e. Always using the word 'TV', but also using additional disambiguation to sub-categorize a particular entry, notwithstanding the above point about disambiguation vs. categorization. Examples include (TV serial), (TV mini-series), (TV animated series) etc.

7: television

Example [[Friends (television)]]

  • Advantages: (please add)
    • The simplest form of disambiguation next to TV.
  • Disadvantages (please add)
    • Title may give the incorrect impression that Friends is a type of television, rather than something broadcast on television.

8: television show

Example [[Friends (television show)]]

  • Advantages: (please add)
    • "Show" eliminates distinction between British and American spelling (program/me) in titles.
  • Disadvantages (please add)
    • Term is less common in British English.

9: television program AE and television programme BE

Example [[Friends (television program)]] and [[Coupling (television programme)]]

  • Advantages: (please add)
  • Disadvantages (please add)
    • Confusing for those who won't know which is the "correct" spelling.
      Generally the actual article will have "program" or "programme" in the text. Also AE/BE proponants will be quick to rectify mistakes.

10: television ....

I.e. Always using the word 'television', but also using additional disambiguation to sub-categorize a particular entry notwithstanding the above point about disambiguation vs. categorization. Examples include television serial, television mini-series, television animated series etc..

11.

Please add additional suggestions here.

Additional disambiguation

There are likely one or two cases where using one or other form of disambiguation suggested above will still lead to possible confusion between two or more articles and additional disambiguation will be required. Suggestions for proposed systems of additional disambiguation are welcomed here.

Voting

1: Ad-hoc

  1. RickK 19:07, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) (my first choice)
  2. If we disambiguate only where necessary, the other subjects being disambiguated from can help suggest how to disambiguate titles. --Michael Snow 00:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. This is such a trivial stylistic matter that I don't understand why it's caused so many problems. Just name the things something rational and go do something else. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. What Cyrius wrote. OwenBlacker 14:17, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Goobergunch 22:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  6. I don't really see any need to change the old system, it's worked reasonably well. -- Arwel 16:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. Rossumcapek 18:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) Second Choice. Rapidly losing interest due to great variety of choices.

2: Categorization, would require further discussion

3: (TV)

4: (TV show)

  1. OwenBlacker 14:24, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC) (second choice)
  2. tooto 15:04, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

5: (TV program) AE and (TV programme) BE

6: (TV ....); would require further discussion

  1. Netoholic @ 22:52, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC) -- Along the other options documented here based on much previous discussion. Everyone knows what TV means, we should use short phrases where possible.

7: (television)

  1. RickK 19:08, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC) (second choice)
  2. James F. (talk) 23:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) (second choice)
  3. Mackerm 16:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Rossumcapek 18:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) First choice. This whole issue seems needlessly over-debated.
  5. Foolip 13:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) Keeping it simple. (first choice)

8: (television show)

9: (television program) AE and (television programme) BE

  1. James F. (talk) 23:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) (first choice)

10: (television ....) ; would require further dicussion

  1. My primary vote is for option 1, but I vote here to indicate my preference for "television ..." as a sensible first option when disambiguation is necessary. --Michael Snow 00:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. OwenBlacker 14:24, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC) (third choice)
  3. Television does sound better than TV. I'm not sure if it should be alone, or with some other form.. KorbenDirewolf 18:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. I like television better than TV, but either should be further qualified. Paul August
  5. Foolip 13:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) Keeping it almost as simple. (second choice)
  6. Acegikmo1 06:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

11: Other, please elaborate

Further discussion regarding this poll

It looks to me like the previous poll was extended when it was at 4/7. That is not marginal. That is decisive rejection, from which no hope of consensus in favor will ever emerge, and that poll should have been terminated. Snowspinner 17:07, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

We ought to be careful in using the word "series" in television articles as the British seem to say that a television "programme" has a "series" each year. Here in the US we are of the opinion that a television "series" has a "season" each year. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:20, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you'd need worry too much. 'Series' can comfortably mean either here (so yes, you can have series of series...) and 'season' also has common currency, maybe not so much with the general public, but certainly with anybody who has even a passing interest in television. It seems to be particularly used for series which have a large number of seasons, for example, the twenty-six individual production blocks of the original run of Doctor Who are almost exclusively referred to as 'seasons' by fans and chroniclers of that particular show. Angmering 17:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I would think that for purposes for clarity, it would be best to avoid naming conventions that use either US English or British English-specific spelling or terms. Is there any particular reason why it might be necessary to include such qualifiers as "program/programme" or "series/season"? --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would only become necessary to use season/series or some other alternative in an article title if you wanted to have an article about a particular season/series of a programme. Disambiguation qualifiers do not need to be specific. They are not for classification or catergorization, they are only used when absolutely necessary to avoid confusion with similarly titled articles. Mintguy (T)
[[Foo (bar)]] means that Foo is a type of bar. Use of just [[Title (television)]] or [[Title (television)]] would mean that Title is a type of television. Using either "series" or "program(me)" by itself is equally ambiguous because you don't know what media is being used. -- Netoholic @ 19:39, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
But disambiguation isn't catergorization. So that argument is invalid. Mintguy (T) 22:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, "Foo (bar)" means that it's an article about Foo and that Foo can be described/categorized as bar to disambiguate it with other Foos. Maybe sometimes Foo is a type of bar, but see for example (all my examples are Star Trek!) Vulcan salute (Star Trek) for a example when it is not. – Foolip 23:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Vulcan salute (Star Trek) needed no disambiguation, so I've moved it to Vulcan salute. In this case (television shows), my example is correct. -- Netoholic @ 23:02, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
Very well, take Vulcan (Star Trek) as an example instead. – Foolip 23:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Vulcan salute" sure does need to be at Vulcan salute (Star Trek), since "Vulcan" can also be a Greek god or slang for Neoconservatives in the Bush 43 Administration. (Better would be to merge "Vulcan Salute" with "Star Trak"). -- orthogonal 23:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Did the Roman god have a salute associated with him? Unless he did, Vulcan salute (Star Trek) doesn't need the disambiguation. -Sean Curtin 01:20, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Do people feel that the poll would be clearer if we got rid of the a b c d etc... and just had numbers instead? If anyone wants to do with without removing what's already there, then please go ahead. Mintguy (T)

Well I've done it anyway. Mintguy (T)

Gah. Putting the poll itself on a separate page is really a bad idea. Snowspinner 19:56, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Just posted this to User talk:Mintguy, and though it might clarify my disapproval:

Adding more options to the poll at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) won't solve my "issue" (too big a word) with it. My reason for liking User:Gtrmp/TV draft poll is that it separates TV/television and the questions of program/programme/show/series/whatever. To cover all of the posibilities with the structure of your poll suggestion we'd have to list all permutations of {television,TV,nothing}+{program,programme,series,show,whatever,nothing} which is no good. The "flat" version has the advantage of being simpler of course. – Foolip 23:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That kind of separation is exactly like what I had first, see (here). Several people said that this (which is simpler than the other one) was too confusing, so I simplified it. The other poll has many options that are simply unneeded, we don't need to be overly specific about everything, this is for disambiguation purposes only. also these more elaborate options are included (albeit lumped together) on this poll. Mintguy (T) 23:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Most of those unneeded options were added or rendered redundant by edits by User:Netoholic, as was the "confusing" labelling. The current version of that poll is closer to the original version, though of course further input is welcome. -Sean Curtin 01:20, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
The labeling was inserted to facilitate referencing individual items during later discussion. My version seems to make the items REALLY clear [2]. -- Netoholic @ 02:09, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)


This poll is needlessly complex, and probably as doomed as any other effort. I propose that we first decide the question of "TV" vs "television" in disambiguating text, then later move on to what should be used for episoding, one-time, and special programs. Please see section 1 (only) on User:Gtrmp/TV draft poll#1. Television or TV for what this may look like. Any seconds on this idea? -- Netoholic @ 03:56, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Why is voting taking place? Has a consensus been reached as to the form of the survey? Has voting started? Is there a deadline? Can the survey still be changed? Can advantages, disadvantages, alternatives be added? Paul August 17:06, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I had a change of heart in the (dis)approval question. This was my original opinion, with comments:

  • Foolip 22:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) I think that the previous poll was not fair, and that Mintguy has acted correctly in "restarting" the process. However, I don't think that this poll is terribly good. While it gives more or less the same choices as User:Gtrmp/TV draft poll, I prefer the latter as I find it to be better structured.
    • A "more developed" version of this poll was deemed to be too confusing, so I simplified it. :Mintguy (T)

– Foolip 13:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This poll suffers from the exact same problem that the last poll did: without having had a fixed beginning and ending for the voting period defined at the poll's start, it can't actually affect policy. It's helpful for seeing what options users prefer, but it can't actually form an official convention; and if that's not the goal of the poll, what's the point? -Sean Curtin 01:01, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Then please suggest an end date. At the top of the page I asked for people to do so, please help move the process on. I would myself but but I think I have imposed myself on this too much already. I'm trying to give other users the chance to express opinions and move this whole thing forward, and not have it stagnate like it has been for the last month. 01:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)