Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 7

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

...and how!

As the mediator at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes I was asked to comment here. I can confirm, for what it's worth, that the issue of appending (Lost) to every episode was raised by Elonka at one point, but it was not disucussed during the time I was mediator and was not part of the final agreement.

More importantly, can I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways? There was a year-long edit and move war over state highway names—should an article be named California State Route 91 or State Route 91 (California)? There were move wars, blocks, mediation, and finally arbitration, leading to a complex 3 month long multi-stage poll. When the poll went the wrong way, the leader of one fanction, a highly prolific contributor with more than 40,000 edits, simply quit in frustration. Please look at the principles in that case, especially 9) When an arbitrary decision is called for, it should be made by those users and administrators in a position to do so. Sometimes any decision is better than no decision. and 10) When an arguably arbitrary decision has been made, unless there is a substantial basis for changing it, the decision should be accepted. Rather than taking sides on the issue, can I ask that all sides step back, think about it from the point of view of a user, not an editor, think about the prinicples adopted in the Highways arbitration case, and most importantly, think about whether the time and energy you might spent fighting over this issue might be better spent. Thatcher131 12:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Thatcher. I think this should help provide us all with some much-needed perspective. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I've said all I care to say on this ridiculous issue and I've wasted enough time here. I'm out. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher, thanks for stopping in. I agree with your assessment of the situation. The naming issue was definitely not one of the items explicitly discussed in the mediation, as we spent our time focusing on those items that were the cause of strong disagreement. However, we did come up with an "Episode guidelines" page, and there was apparent consensus for multiple items on that page, including the naming issue. This can be proven by later discussions between myself and PKtm, where we had a "mediation adherence table"[1], and his acceptance of the consensus at that time can be seen in his edit summaries[2][3][4][5], as well as a comment later in the discussion where he was specifically telling Ned Scott to stop meddling with the guidelines page[6], since there was already a consensus[7]. I believe that we are also all in agreement that one of the results of the mediation was to link the Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines page from every single Lost episode article.
Then, after the mediation, we agreed on a format for converting the episodes (which included moving them to consistent titles). Everything was actually working pretty well, and we were moving forward with the agreed compromise -- work was proceeding quietly, steadily, and constructively for weeks, with members of both sides of the mediation "initialling" each episode as it was completed. Then, about halfway through the conversion process, in late October, Ned Scott started with his edit warring, reverting edits, changing the text on the guideline page without any attempt at discussion, and being disruptive in multiple other ways, such as completely changing the "mediation adherence table", to the point where conversion work stalled. His actions resulted in other problems too, such as the guideline page eventually being protected from edit wars, and the situation has continued to escalate to its current status, where a main Naming Conventions guideline page is protected, and hundreds of articles around Wikipedia have been being moved without consensus, with hundreds more under threat of being moved, by editors who are claiming they have consensus, but obviously do not. Is this a big waste of time? Yes, I agree. Especially because this whole thing could have been resolved by simply running one clean and unbiased poll, to show for sure where the consensus is. --Elonka 06:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Several points, Elonka:
  • You are now saying that the episode naming issue was not part of the mediation, but was part of a consensus of the members of the mediation developed after the mediation closed. This is a change from your earlier position, and should be noted as such.
  • Ned was part of the mediation. You have frequently suggested on this page that when there is vocal dissent, there is not consensus. By your own logic, once Ned protested the naming pattern of the Lost articles, there was no consensus among the participants in the mediation.
  • Looking back on the situation, it seems that Ned was have been overly confrontational and occasionally incivil in the way he went about raising his concerns about episode naming. However, Ned's incivility does not negate the fact that the episode naming business was not part of the mediation agreement. Ideally, Ned should have raised this issue politely, and it would have been resolved through discussion — but that didn't happen, and there's fault on both sides.
  • It really isn't fair to place the blame for WP:TV-NC being protected exclusively on Ned, any more than it's fair for Ned to blame you exclusively. It takes (at least) two to edit war.
  • You say, "this whole thing could have been resolved by simply running one clean and unbiased poll, to show for sure where the consensus is". As Radiant! has frequently pointed out on this page, Wikipedia guidelines are not established by polls, but by discussion. The poll's problems are irrelevant to the consensus. The discussion following the poll established a clear and unambiguous consensus against preemptive disambiguation. I know that you disagree, but hopefully we will be able to find some common ground in the mediation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the term "dumbfounded" as opposed to uncivil. I have been fairly polite during the majority of this whole discussion, and considering how absurd things got, I didn't do too bad. Not only that, but it's text, not speech or a normal conversation. When in a dispute the other side always seems harsher than they really are. Forgive me for standing up for myself. -- Ned Scott 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Josiah, Ned Scott was not a party to the mediation. He was, however, obviously aware of it, as he posted in the "additional issues" section [8]. Also, after guidelines were agreed upon, Ned was also obviously aware of those guidelines, as he posted in September [9][10]. Now of course Ned has the right to change his mind, but I think it's clear that there was consensus for the guidelines, and they should not have been changed without discussion. --Elonka 18:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I made the mistake of making an assumption that there was a consensus at that time. You seem to make this a big part of your argument, that if people assumed something was true when it wasn't, then it should be true. -- Ned Scott 20:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Suggested poll wording, December 2006

Here's the latest version of recommended poll wording:

==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 episodes); others have followed the general guidelines (example: Babylon 5 episodes)
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 or other group of interested editors, should be able to determine what pattern works best for that show.
This poll is to gauge opinions on the matter. Please do not simply answer with "Support" or "Oppose", but indicate your actual opinion on any or all of the questions below:
===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? Should groups of interested editors, such as those in a WikiProject, be allowed to establish consistent naming conventions for their particular show, or should a single pattern of naming be applied to all television episode articles on Wikipedia, regardless of series?
=== 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===

If anyone has trouble with any of the above wording, please suggest changes below. If no one has concerns with wording within the next few days, we'll go ahead and proceed with the poll. Thanks. --Elonka 00:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good Elonka, I my self can think of over 1 thousand articles that use(d? - due to unilateral moving) suffixes and so I propose it be changed to "over 1 thousand" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No matter what the wording of the poll is, the poll is unacceptable. I can no longer assume good faith at this point. Assuming good faith would imply that you don't know any better, but it's been explained so many times that it isn't possible. Suggesting a poll is spitting in the face of everyone who has participated in the discussion and is the most disruptive and uncivil behavior that one can engage in at this point. The page moves will continue because there is no consensus to overturn the existing guideline. If you won't talk about the naming convention then stop participating in this discussion. Jay32183 01:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You da man, Jay! Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess according to my talk page, pointing out that Elonka isn't being civil is an act of incivility. Jay32183 01:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Those messages are BS. The very coy, unoriginal titling alone is reason to ignore it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Question #1 shouldn't even be addressed here. Whether individual projects or groups of editors can override a guideline is not specific to television episode articles. It's a general Wikipedia question and should be addressed in a more public forum. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've actually bothered to read question one now and I have a serious problem with not only asking that question here but anywhere on Wikipedia. It makes the assumption that there are closed groups on Wikipedia. The reason a WikiProject can't go against Wikipedia wide consensus is that the project couldn't have generated consensus unless it ignored everyone else on Wikipedia. Basically, you're asking "Even though it's been agreed that everyone should do things this way can this smaller group agree to do things differently as long as we don't get caught?" What's even worse is that you've made claims in other parts of this discussion that if it takes too long for you to "get caught" that your change shouldn't be undone. Jay32183 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Is this for real, or am I stuck in a time warp? I strongly oppose doing another redundant poll, it's been disruptive enough already and this just adds to the disruption. If you want to poll, do it on a Request for Move page. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for a new poll

I realize that some people are opposed to a new poll, and are clinging to the results of the old one, but I think it's clear the old one was run in a very biased manner. A new survey would help clarify the exact issues in dispute, and would allow everyone to participate, even the casual editors who are not following this discussion on an hourly (or even daily) basis. I've been receiving many complaints from people who say that they want to weigh in on this discussion, but they're confused as to what exactly is being discussed. And I have to agree, that there are a few people here who seem to be posting so many times per day, that it makes it very difficult to follow things. ArbCom has ruled that polls are appropriate in situations where there a large number of editors.

Other editors also want a new poll, though they're not posting in this discussion on a daily basis. A a review though:

  • Matthewfenton: "proceed with this" [11]
  • Englishrose: "the poll does need to be redone" [12]
  • PeregrineFisher: "let's redo it" [13]
  • PKtm: "I think this wording is clear enough, and I'd like to (again) encourage that we proceed" [14]
  • Argash: Start the poll over [15]
  • Josiah Rowe: A new poll is not necessary, but is preferable to continued mudslinging [16]
  • Oggleboppiter "I think having a new poll is a fantastic idea" [17]
  • 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". [18]
  • Riverbend: "There should be a new, clean, well-advertised discussion since this seems to be such a hot issue." [19]

A clean and fairly-run survey would help to show where the consensus genuinely lies, and would help clarify who's on which side of the issue. I strongly recommend that we proceed. --Elonka 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the lengthy list of people who feel the first poll correctly represented their views? Where is the list of people who feel another poll does not need to be run? With diffs please like you did above. Surely you're not going to give only one view of this issue, right? That would be disappointing. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
"I've been receiving many complaints from people who say that they want to weigh in on this discussion" - could you point us to these "many complaints"? If "many" are saying this, why don't they say it here? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Milo. We're sorry if people have all been complaining to you directly, Elonka, for a new poll. Certainly, it's not your "problem" to fix. Direct them here and advise them to speak for themselves. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Mediation

Hello. My 'name' is Wikizach. I have been asked to be an informal mediator. I would like to know everything that is going on, so if you can, please tell me on my talk page. I would greatly like to support a fair vote. Please sumbit your requests to me. Thank you. WikieZach| talk 01:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, but I don't think informal mediation will be of much use at this point. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ned — I think we need formal mediation. Also, one of the issues under dispute is that the majority of editors on this page believe that a second vote is not necessary, as a consensus was established in the discussion following the first vote. Therefore, coming into the discussion by saying "I would greatly like to support a fair vote" is not neutral. I am working on a proposal for formal mediation at WP:RFM. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
For you to get to Medcom or Arbcom you need First stage mediation. My comment about "fairness" is of many things I have found in reviewing the logs of this dispute. I believe mediation is always possible, if we try it, I would then be glad to help a case to the Mediation committee. Remember, it requires all parties to sign on, and as far as I can tell, there are many parties. And a direct appeal to the Arb. Com. will not work, they require 'prior review'[20]. WikieZach| talk 02:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Radiant! (talk · contribs) has already attempted informal mediation. It was clearly unsuccessful as any further informal mediation would be. Your input is appreciated though. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I couldn't be of more help. I wish you best of luck with mediation. (Radiant) 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Radiant may of tried but it would of never worked as he lost his neutrality. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • By its very nature, a neutral party can disagree with you - because if you knew in advance that the party would agree with you, then it wouldn't be a neutral party. (Radiant) 10:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No apology necessary, Radiant. You'll notice I didn't speculate on why your informal mediation failed. Hint: it wasn't your fault. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Radiant! Riverbend 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Formal mediation request filed

I have filed a formal mediation request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), and will be contacting all participants. Since so many people have participated in this discussion, I listed only those who have made significant comments recently; however, as far as I'm concerned anyone who wishes to join the mediation is welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Mediation Issue Clarification

I have actually been following this debate pretty faithfully though I haven't posted much for some time. Of the tremendous amount of discussion this issue has generated, it is my impression that much of the recent discussion has actually been debate about the debate itself, and as such the actual issues are becoming harder for the casual editor to follow.

As is currently being pointed out at the RfM talk page, I think that the current request for mediation is unclear, and I think it is a direct result of the confusion I just mentioned. In that vein, I think it's important to take several steps back and clarify the core issue, in preparation for mediation. What follows is my attempt to do so.

What we DO agree on

It appears to me that there is consensus in support of the following guideline:

  • "Articles about television episodes should only be disambiguated when necessary (i.e., when there is another article on Wikipedia with the same name)."
I would strongly disagree with this particular guideline because it is inconsistant and confusing having some of the episodes for a particular series named one way, and others named the other way. There would be far less confusion if all articles for a particular series were named the same way.JeffStickney 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is also established consensus in support of the following guideline:

  • "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

Proposal

It has been proposed that the first guideline above be amended with the following statement:

"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 whether or not the suffix is strictly required by disambiguation rules. These are special 'exception' cases and are generally discouraged for other series."

Arguments SUPPORTING this proposal

  • This statement is necessary because we should remind editors that, as with any guideline, exceptions can and should be made when appropriate.
  • This statement is necessary because it is reasonable for WikiProjects to develop guidelines for articles in their field of interest.
  • This statement is necessary because it protects reasonable exceptions to general Wikipedia guidelines that a consensus of interested editors in a particular project have deemed appropriate.
  • This statement is necessary because it protects existing guidelines made in good faith by WikiProject editors.
  • This statement is necessary because it allows linkmaking to episode pages to be consistent, predictable, and easily recognizable (to benefit editors), and increases the likelihood that links will work (to benefit readers).

Arguments AGAINST this proposal

  • This statement is unnecessary because common-sense exceptions to guidelines are always allowed on Wikipedia, and as such it is not necessary to explicitly permit particular exceptions on guideline pages.
  • This statement is unnecessary because there is currently no evidence of any WikiProjects which have been determined (via consensus) to stand as a "common sense exception" to this guideline.
  • This statement is unacceptable because precedence alone (i.e., "that's the way it's been done for a long time") is not a good reason to avoid editing or moving articles.
  • This statement is unnecessary because unnecessarily disambiguating to give context is discouraged by WP:D and inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia.
  • This statement is unnecessary because with properly used redirects, links will work properly regardless of which name editors link to.
  • This statement is unnecessary because it causes linkmaking from other shows and other parts of wikipedia to be less consistent and predictable.
  • This statement is unnecessary because no guidelines need or should need "protecting". Any guideline can change at any time if that change is supported by consensus.
  • This statement is unnecessary because it says that some cases are "special" but fails to explain why those cases are special.
  • This statement is unnecessary because by listing exceptions, it weakens the guideline and has the potential to encourage each individual show to debate whether they should be an exception, leading to redundant arguing and inconsistent results.

Discussion I

First of all, I'd like to be certain that the proposal above is the core issue. Elonka has stated this several times with only slightly different wording, so I am assuming that it is accurate. However, Elonka, if I have misrepresented you here, or if your actual request is for something different, please feel free to change the "Proposal" section. MatthewFenton, and anyone else who may also disagree with the current guideline, if you have a proposal that is different from Elonka's, then perhaps it would be useful to make a new section in this same format so we can we can address it as well.

Second, assuming that the proposal is accurate, I invite people to edit the "Arguments" sections above to clearly state their views in relation to the proposal. I think it might be useful for MedCom if we keep each of these sections to a certain length; I'd like to suggest 150 words per section. To keep it within this length, I invite people to edit the existing content as you feel is necessary to accurately describe the current views.

Josiah, I appreciate the effort you put into the RfM, and I hope this process helps it succeed. If, for some reason, it is rejected, then perhaps a bit of organization in this manner will help us construct a new, successful RfM... or, ideally, obviate the need for one. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 21:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Toby, I think "is unnecessary" for at least some of the against arguments is not strong enough. At least for the latter two, perhaps "is unacceptable"? --Serge 22:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with the characterization of WP:TV-NC as a WikiProject. It is, or at least hopes to be, a full guideline, like other naming conventions pages (such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)). Members of several different WikiProjects are participating in this discussion, but we are not a WikiProject.
I am somewhat reluctant to try to state the arguments for the proposal, but as an exercise in "writing for the enemy", I would suggest that the second item should be rewritten to something like "This statement is necessary because it is reasonable for WikiProjects to develop guidelines for articles in their field of interest." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
A similar discussion is taking place on the discussion page for the mediation, after changes were made by editors who were not the instigator (probably not the right word) of the RFM, hopefully in the spirit of constructivity. A possible addition to the Pro-proposal list - to make linkmaking to episode pages consistent, and predictable, and easily recognizable (to benefit editors), and increase the likelihood that links will work (to benefit readers). Riverbend 23:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
The current iteration of the proposed issue framing (still under discussion) is: "1) How should individual television articles be named; and 2) To what extent should interested editors, through consensus, be able to set series-specific guidelines to address the needs of pages for a particular television show when some of those rules are inconsistent with broader Wiki guidelines?" Any input would be welcome. . . Riverbend 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the issue is so much about setting guidelines as much as making exceptions to guidelines. It seems like a distraction to even mention setting guidelines that don't need an exception to wikipedia guidelines, there isn't any controversy about that, is there? I prefer just discussing possible exceptions as in the proposal above, although I think it goes into too much detail about star trek and wikiprojects. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
My 2 cents - I think that the specific arguments should not go into the mediation request - that is what the mediation is for, for someone to help us sort these things out and give everyone a chance to state their thoughts and ideas. This page and its structure would be an ideal fall-back option for if the mediation doesn't work, and to brainstorm in the meantime, but I think the issue framing for mediation would be something somewhat separate - something simpler and more general that everyone can agree with so the mediation can get started (which is under discussion on the talk page for the mediation). That's just an opinion. . . I just think that the 2 pages where this is being discussed, though, should touch base make sure to be distinct so there isn't 2 places coming up with different versions of the same thing. Riverbend 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI it says this at Wikipedia:Mediations: "When a mediation request is filed at Requests for Mediation, the initating party fills out a pre-defined format, listing the parties, the articles involved, the previous steps in dispute resolution, and a concise set of issues to be mediated, stated as neutral bullet points. The Committee is very strict about the form of requests, in order to prevent the massive debates and flame wars that have taken place in the past. Requests that fail or refuse to comply with the required format will be rejected; the Committee expects compliance with Committee policy and procedure as a minimum demonstration of the good faith necessary for mediation." (emphasis added) Riverbend 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Riverbend. My intention with this section is not to supplant the RfM, but to concisely describe the issue at hand to make it easier for the mediator assigned to this case, since it is my understanding that the mediator will review this discussion as part of the mediation. I posted it here in case the current RfM is rejected for some reason.
Josiah is right about TV:NC not being a WikiProject... I think I was using the term in a more general sense ("editors who are interested in a particular thing") than the more official sense. I'll make Josiah's suggested change, but again I invite everyone to craft or augment these statements to accurately reflect the various views. I think if we work hard to pinpoint the exact point of contention it will make our mediator's job easier. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 07:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood! We would love more input on that page about the actual issue framing - I think that you have done a good job with this page! Riverbend 14:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
One additional item worth mentioning, is that this discussion hasn't been just about adding to the guideline, but about removing from it. The Star Trek exception was a standard part of this guidelines page from the very beginning, and remained in place without a problem for several months, until Ned Scott decided to engage in edit wars to remove it[21]. So I'm uncomfortable with a presumption that we have to get consensus to put an exception back on the page, when there was no consensus to remove that wording in the first place. --Elonka 04:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
There may not have been a clear consensus when Ned removed the Star Trek exception, but I, for one, think that there has been a clear consensus supporting that removal subsequently. There certainly is not a consensus at the moment to return the old Star Trek exception to the page. However, we might be able to get consensus for something like Milo's #Proposal 2 below, and I think it's more productive to look forward towards things like that than to look backward at all the mess that got us here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The example was added without an explanation or rational reason, or even with a consensus. So if there is no consensus to include, why must there be consensus to remove? Just because it was there for a time doesn't matter; that doesn't give the rational behind it any weight. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Something that has been in place in a guideline page for several months, without controversy, can be assumed to have consensus. Something that is removed from a guideline page, and is immediately protested, does not need to have a consensus to be put back on the page. That kind of thinking would lead to endless edit wars. The way that this situation should have evolved, should have been that if Ned had a problem with that section of the guideline, for him to bring it up on the talkpage and ensure that there was consensus for a change. Longstanding guidelines on Wikipedia are not to be changed at a whim. --Elonka 06:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
One person adding something and no one noticing is not a consensus. It's important to realize that the person who started the original Star Trek discussion is the same person who suggested using redirects to solve this issue. Jay32183 06:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, one or two people protesting a change, even to "longstanding guidelines", does not constitute a lack of consensus for that change. Besides, however few people were paying attention when that happened, there are many more people paying attention now, and the consensus is clear. So what happened in the past with much fewer numbers paying attention is moot. --Serge 20:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Serge, what is clear is that there is a major dispute, so saying that there is a consensus, when there obviously is not, is not helpful. Please review Wikipedia:Consensus. --Elonka 21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. It is clear that there is a supermajority that supports the current wording of the guidelines, and only a relatively small minority is disputing the current wording. Is that helpful? --Serge 21:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly clear that there's not a major dispute. The vast majority agree, and there are two people trying to make their objections seem significant. Elonka, what exactly do you hope to accomplish by continuing to insist that there's no consensus in the face of an obvious one? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

While it may be late in the game, I would like to toss my opinion in here. I was particularly perturbed when all of the Charmed episodes suddenly were renamed; thankfully I was directed here to see what was going on. My vote is firmly Support as I am a categorization and organization junkie, and feel that having the appropriate series designation after the episode name make things so much simpler for those individuals searching for terms (allows them to see at a glance that an article is or isn't what they're looking for). I also see that there is an effort to rename all the Star Trek episodes. I would definitely discourage this action for Trek, or any other multi-series franchise; one reason being that citation templates have been built around Wikipedia (not necessarily for Trek, just using it as an example) which reference particular episodes, and rely upon a standard naming convention to easily link to episodes and uniformly organize the cites. While redirects mean this isn't a tremendously big problem, it still creates a big mess that has to be cleaned up. For television series with well layed out, executed, and established formats, there seems no reason to to perform mass renames. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What mess is created by redirects? The only things that could need cleanup are double redirects (because they don't work) and templates (they create self linking). Those issues are to be checked for in all page moves, I don't see how it's any different here. Also, an unwillingness to do work should never be an argument against doing work. Jay32183 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the above proposal about an addition to the guideline. It's reasonable to include wording which states that certain WikiProjects (or other groups of interested editors) may set up somewhat different naming guidelines for the episodes within their sphere of influence. --Elonka 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of my position

Recently I've noticed some editors suggesting that I oppose WikiProjects having guidelines (here, implicitly here). This is inaccurate, and if I've given that impression I apologize. It is completely appropriate for WikiProjects to develop guidelines for articles in their field of interest. The issue, for me, is that if those guidelines come into conflict with general Wikipedia guidelines, the WikiProject should be able to explain their reasoning for any exceptions in a manner that is comprehensible and acceptable to non-Project members. And if, after discussion, a wide consensus of non-Project members feel that the WikiProject's guideline is a bad idea, the WikiProject should yield to the larger consensus.

I hope that we can stop the misleading talk of whether WikiProjects are "allowed to set guidelines" — I don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't be. The only question is how much weight those guidelines should be given, especially when they come into conflict with the guidelines of Wikipedia as a whole. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, this is exactly my position too. --Serge 23:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Rich Farmbrough, 13:11 5 December 2006 (GMT).
Thanks for bringing this section to my attention, Rich (this whole page is almost impossible to follow). I also agree with Josiah. The problem is this underlying feeling that certain people think members of a project or editors of a certain type of article (like regular editors of Lost episode articles) should be able to come up with their own guidelines completely separate from Wikipedia for reasons that only make sense to them. It's almost like forming splinter factions and mini-Wikipedias that don't answer to anyone else. That is where I get a bad feeling. Otherwise, if projects or even individual editors wanted to follow variant guidelines and those guidelines were brought up in a public place (or places preferably) and there was clearly consensus that the variant guidelines were acceptable, I say go for it! That type of variant guideline discussion and consensus is at the core of the Wikipedia community and doesn't even require a mention at each given guideline. What's the point of having every guideline include a stipulation saying "but, if there is consensus, exceptions can be made". That's a given that doesn't need to be explicitly stated. I think the real argument here is how far reaching the consensus needs to be. I say pretty far reaching, others seem to disagree. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I like the direction the discussion has been heading. I also think the comments from Thatcher131 were excellent and very relevant to this discussion; I'd strongly recommend reading them and the case he links to (I'd also recommend moving it to the bottom, right now it's lost in the middle of a huge discussion). We definitely have consensus on the guideline itself, and the debate seems to be about making exceptions, and about whether the guideline should mention them. I think a possible compromise is saying that exceptions are possible, but make it clear that the bar is set high for them. I also think it's better to talk about exceptions in general instead of listing examples of them. I tried to make most of this a reflection of wikipedia guidelines as opposed to setting any new ones. This is pretty wordy , but I tried to make it as clear and loophole-free as possible. Any comments would be appreciated, and feel free to use this as a jumping off point for other possible wordings:

As with all Wikipedia guidelines, exceptions may be made, but only if there is consensus to do so. While "common sense" should be used to make exceptions, individuals may not come to the same "common sense" conclusions; if the community at large can't be convinced that a proposal is "common sense", it may not be. Keep in mind that consensus is made up of the community at large. A small group of editors working on articles may come to a decision, but others in the general Wikipedia community may not agree. Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them, and since television articles share the namespace with all other topics, any exceptions can affect the entire encyclopedia. While it's not mandatory to seek wider comment on making exception to a guideline, it's probably a good idea if you think there may be objections. A consensus decision to make an exception is not binding, and that exception may be reversed if consensus changes.

If there isn't consensus for making an exception, the guidelines should be followed.

--Milo H Minderbinder 21:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That proposal is just a catch 22 situation. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Milo, I think that's a very useful statement, and I would support its addition to the guideline page. I doubt we can get the objectors to agree to it, however. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to request we make it clear that this is not a part of WP:TV-NC itself, but simply the consensus interpretation of WP:POLICY and good advice to follow. This guideline is about naming conventions of articles on television, not Wikipedia policy. Other than that, I completely agree with everything it says and if including it helps end the fighting, I support it. –  Anþony  talk  09:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'd be very interested in hearing Elonka's opinions about this, since it is (or should be) obvious to her that her continued requests for a new poll are going nowhere. This looks to me like the sort of opening that someone genuinely interested in compromise should take. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Sponge Who Could Fly - requested move

Another requested move of a Lost episode (correction: it's a spongebob squarepants episode). This time:

The Sponge Who Could Fly (The Lost Episode) → The Sponge Who Could Fly

See Talk:The Sponge Who Could Fly (The Lost Episode)#Requested move --Serge 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"TV series"

Note: I don't know what the above dispute is about, and someone should archive this talk page.

"TV series" is not a moniker appropriate for a professional, long-term encyclopedia. "Television series" is the clearer, full name that will be understood by the most people for the longest period of time. —Centrx→talk • 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The debate is voluminous and ongoing. The page is being archived regularly, but fills up fast.
By, "TV series", I presume you mean the disambiguation tag suggested here. As a dab tag, it's not a part of the article's title or content, so it's not critical that it be understood by the reader. It's an abbreviation for the convenience of editors that does not seriously impact anyone. If, for some odd reason "TV" comes into such disuse that it causes real confusion, we can make the change then. –  Anþony  talk  01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait. What?! Do my eyes deceive me?! A new issue here?! Hallelujah, thank you Centrx!
TV has been TV on this guideline for a very long time but I'm not entirely sure why. I agree it looks dumb. From my very light forensics, it appears that (TV series) was just the first method used with no discussion that I could easily find. The earliest useful revision of this page I could find was this one from 2004. First, you'll see a section about one person trying to hijack a poll - that sounds eerily familiar. More importantly, the results of that poll show a lot of agreement for options besides "TV". "Television" gets lots of support, "ad hoc" get some too, TV not so much. For whatever reason (I confess to very lightly skimming the history), the issue was dropped and no guideline was ever made from the poll. It was finally resurrected 16 months later with Netoholic - the biggest proponent for "TV" - leading the charge. Therefore, when the guideline first came to be, TV was on it. No offense to Netoholic - I don't know him at all - but it seems that he simply outlasted everyone. Quadell's edit here reminds me a lot of the current mediation where the walls are starting to show cracks from the siege.
Anyway, thanks for letting me ramble about something other than the last month's nonsense. I'd fully support changing TV to television wherever it appears in the guideline. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I share both wknight94's relief in a change of subject and support for "television" over "TV". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds much better. Also I think that this idea that "dab tags" are not part of the article is... well a little odd, form a user point of view. Ith's there in big neon letters (depending on your skin) at the top of the screen. If it was (for example) "Squidward (ADSJB aBSKJDBDKJBSD ADSJB aBSKJDBDKJBSD#222222)" it would certainly be objectionable. Granted it's not necessarily visible in the article being linked from, although in the case of lists, it may very often be. Rich Farmbrough, 13:16 5 December 2006 (GMT).

ArbCom ruling about polls

This is an interesting ArbCom ruling that just closed. Though not about naming conventions, it does have several similarities with our own dispute here, including the issue about polls, and whether or not it was proper for Radiant (or anyone) to have been deleting polls posted by another user: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. See especially the "Principles" and "Findings of Fact". --Elonka 06:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, "Radiant, while aggressive, violated no policy." -- Ned Scott 06:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, I'm not sure I'm understanding what points you feel are relevant to the discussion. In fact, the findings seem to run somewhat counter to your arguments so far. Could you elaborate? --Brian Olsen 07:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to point to Findings of Fact #2: "Fresheneesz fundamentally misunderstands Wikipedia policy and practice ... that Wikipedia resolves discussions through the use of voting." –  Anþony  talk  07:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of the rulings are open to interpretation, but my reading of the relevant portions is as follows:
  • That deleting a poll off a page, while not a specific violation of policy, is considered "aggressive" and the kind of action that "exacerbates the dispute." Though there was not a specific censure, the ArbCom disapproves of this kind of action, especially by an "experienced administrator." Admins are expected to do things to de-escalate disputes, not intensify them.
  • ArbCom has confirmed that polls may be used when appropriate to gauge opinion, such as "if substantial interest in the proposal developed and a significant number of users were engaged in the conversation." Which applies to us.
In other words: I think we should move forward with finalizing the wording on a poll. Having a poll with wording that is agreed-upon by all parties will help clarify the exact issue in dispute, and will allow all parties to offer their opinions in an equal setting. --Elonka 07:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Having another poll would basically throw out the discussion. Continuing to suggest a poll at this point is simply ignoring everything everyone else has said until this point. You've been asked direct questions that you've responded to without actually answering the question. You spent so much time calling for a poll when people have requested that you actually talk about the naming convention. In my opinion that is more uncivil than name calling, because it causes frustration rather than resulting from frustration. Stop calling for a poll and talk about what matters. Jay32183 08:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Here, here! The poll has been done to death. Stop trying to convince us with a fake show of force, and convince us that Lost (TV series) episodes deserve an exception to established guidelines at both WP:D and WP:TV-NC. Give us an argument. Hell, give us anything besides "I think we should do a poll.". Why, Elonka, do you feel this one topic deserves to be treated differently? --BlueSquadronRaven 16:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
In a related issue, Elonka has suggested a change in the language of WP:POLL that would support the use of polls when "some editors in a discussion are posting multiple times per day, but others can only participate once a day (or less)". See Wikipedia talk:Straw polls#Wording change. –  Anþony  talk  03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Policy/Guideline tag

I propose we remove the tag saying the guideline is disputed. While I acknowledge that there are a couple individuals who don't agree with the current version, I don't think the opposition rises to the level of calling the entire policy into dispute. I also feel that the tag was not added by consensus, but as the result of stopping a revert war, and now the tag has been used as an argument for not following the policy. The tag links to Wikipedia:Policy dispute, which says that a guideline should only be declared "disputed" if there's broad consensus to do so. Based on what that page says, I don't think it's appropriate to leave the tag on this page. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's being abused and misrepresented and used as a reason for not making moves that still would have been okay even if the exception wording were added. I say remove it. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It should be removed immediately since clearly we don't have the broad consensus in support of marking the guideline in dispute that is called for at Wikipedia:Policy dispute. --Serge 19:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. There is a dispute, but it is not a broad one, and there is certainly no consensus to describe the guideline as disputed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Removed. About damn time. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is clearly under dispute - we've been through this before.. do not remove the tag, cheers. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
"Clearly under dispute" is a matter of opinion and interpretation. The tag says it should only be added if there is consensus for it, and right now I'm just seeing the same two people who have been opposing this all along. Let me also point out this phrase from Wikipedia:Policy dispute: "All other attempts to declare a policy or guideline in dispute after it became accepted or operational will be considered vandalism or "highly disruptive egregious disruption". --Milo H Minderbinder 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean we could have them blocked? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how much weight that page has (or even the tag itself), but I'd say that two people trying to not just put a disputed tag on an accepted and in-use guideline, but to prevent it from being followed, without a consensus to do so, may be considered disruptive behavior. And Matthew, instead of reverting and insisting this is "clearly disputed", why don't you show us the consensus supporting that position? Because, after all, you're not supposed to edit wikipedia guidelines without consensus, right? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I see it's already been done, but I support removing the disputed tag. The lines of argument state rather clearly where the state of the consensus are, and does so better than any poll could. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, this is absurd. Of course there is a dispute, as is indicated by the fact that mediation is requested, or have you forgotten that you yourselves have signed on to it? For a reminder, please see: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Anyone, on any side who is engaging in disruptive behavior right now is not helping their case, and when incivility and profanity are thrown in to boot, it just increases the stack of diffs that are going to be used later to prove bad faith. Some of you are able to act like mature adults, who know how to post in a civil manner, and offer reasoned discussions. I think that everyone, deep down, probably also remembers that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to engage in some sort of weird "wiki-combat." Please, can we all calm down, stay focused, allow the WP:DR process to work, give time for everyone to weigh in, and be civil to one another? --Elonka 00:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There's one slight problem. The guideline isn't actually in dispute, you just refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with you. Everything you've contributed to this discussion is based on false assumptions and misinterpretation. Everytime this is pointed out you go on to reiterated the same things that had just been demonstrated as incorrect. You've also insisted upon making a new poll rather than recognizing the discussion, which is just plain insulting. The only incivility going on here is your (Elonka's) refusal to listen to anyone else or answer questions directed at you. We need the mediation only so you will listen to what has been said, because everything we've written here has been ignored or taken out of context. At this point it would just be foolish to assume you're doing it by acciedent, which is the only way to assume this action as good faith. Jay32183 01:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The mediation will be rejected now, as both Wknight94 and I have changed to "disagree". -- Ned Scott 05:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I find it incredibly distasteful to cite the existence of mediation as "evidence" that the guideline is disputed or has no consensus, and thus should not be followed. As I said in the first post of this section, I acknowledge that there are a couple individuals who do not agree with consensus and have voiced their "dispute" of the policy. A couple dissenters isn't enough to declare an entire guideline "in dispute". Not to mention that no article, particularly a guideline, should be edited, much less edit warred over without consensus to make the change. Elonka, you reverted this three times without making a single comment on the talk page - why do you insist on engaging in disruptive behaviour like that? I have changed my "agree" on the original mediation to "disagree" based on this display of bad faith (I know it's already dead, but I wanted to go on record). I don't think there's much hope for Elonka's new mediation attempt either, especially now that she has admitted that she's building up a "stack of diffs" to use as ammo later. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Unknown to M,E

Matthew, Elonka, I'd like to point some things out to you:

  • We all agree that you cannot use the proper {{disputedpolicy}} as the policy's status is not in dispute.
    • This forces the use of an unofficial "disputed-use" template.
      • The policy page cannot be forced to use a new or unofficial template just because "two" people want to.

So, you see, to quote Matthew, "it's a catch22". You can't use a real template for various reasons, and the current template is unofficial. Ultimately, neither is needed. This is probably one of the most famous discussions on Wikipedia now. No one reading the guideline needs to be told about it. Gees. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation update

Well, the formal mediation request has not yet been formally rejected, but considering that people are bailing on it, it's not looking hopeful.[22][23][24] So, unless we can figure out how to get formal mediation back on track, I recommend that we try a different technique of dispute resolution, which is an informal "Mediation cabal" process. No one needs to specifically sign up for this or be an "official participant," you can just dive in and speak your mind (civility, of course, is encouraged). For anyone who wants to participate, or just watch, please set Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Naming conventions (television) on your watchlists.

This entire process has turned out to be quite the education on Wikipedia dispute resolution techniques! I'd still very much like to avoid ArbCom, but if all else fails, it's a last resort. Be warned though that ArbCom is extremely formal, extremely time-consuming (it could take months) and can be very emotionally-draining on all parties. So, I really strongly recommend that we do everything possible to avoid it, and give mediation a good faith effort. --Elonka 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If we can't keep formal mediation on track, I doubt that informal mediation would be any more successful. I'm disappointed that as a group we weren't patient enough to give the formal mediation a chance. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
On this much, Josiah, you and I are in complete agreement.  :/ --Elonka 22:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)