Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Archives

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

Contents 1 Programs needing to be moved (update) 1.1 Procedural question 2 Proposed moves for episodes of The Wire 2.1 Survey I 2.1.1 Support votes 2.1.2 Oppose votes 2.2 Comments 2.3 Wire discussion 2.3.1 Is this the right page 3 Request move for Clash of the Turtle Titans (TMNT 2003 Episode) --> Clash of the Turtle Titans 3.1 Requested move 3.1.1 Survey II 3.1.2 Survey II Support 3.1.3 Survey II Oppose 3.1.4 TMNT discussion 4 Please don't hold any more move requests here 5 MedCab Request for Statements 6 Request for Arbitration 7 TV vs. television issue 8 Once more unto the breech... 9 Compromise Request 10 ArbCom notice? 11 New survey to clarify "use common names" guideline/convention 12 Protection? 13 Quarl's thoughts 13.1 DJ's thoughts 14 Time to archive again? 15 Request Move for Star Trek episode articles 16 Here's one more 17 ........all done!

Programs needing to be moved (update)

Here is a repost of the remaining shows that haven't been moved yet, the original list is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Episode title RfC 3#Programs needing to be moved. I didn't include the shows that have already been moved, they can be seen at the archive page. If I missed any, go ahead and add them to the list. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Category:House (TV series) episodes
• star trek - Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek
  
  • List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes(done)
  • List of Star Trek: The Animated Series episodes done
  • List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes
  • List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes
  • List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes(done)
  • List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes(done)
• buffy and angel - Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse (Project informed on 10/11) (all done)
  
• Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series)(done)
  
• The Wire (TV series)(done, completed through RM)
  

Please do not engage in any further moves, while there is an active dispute. --Elonka 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Take it up with an administrator if you feel so strongly about it. Let them come in, see that five admins are even apart of the discussion, and that there is no issue here. -- Ned Scott 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka has already attempted to raise the issue at AN/I. There has been a distinct lack of response from administrators not already involved in the issue. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, you haven't provided any reason not to follow the existing guideline that hasn't been proven false. And now you refuse to talk about it. Your ignoring us is the only bad faith and uncivil action happening here. Jay32183 20:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, since Yaksha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) went ahead with another batch of non-consensus moves, I have requested a formal block at the Administrator noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting block for non-consensus page moves. As of this writing, a block is still being debated, but I would point out that ^demon (talk · contribs) has posted a formal "cease and desist" on Yaksha's talkpage [1], and posted a formal statement from the Mediation Committee that there is not currently consensus, and that continuing with moves is endangering a mediation[2]. It is my recommendation that we respect this declaration, and cease all moves (by either side), so that the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process can continue unhindered. I in particular call on the admins in this discussion to set an example of how to be a good Wikipedian, by indicating compliance with the request from WP:MEDCOM. --Elonka 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What gives medcom folks the authority to issue "cease and desist" orders? Especially when the medcom proposal has been rejected by the listed parties. I don't agree with his statement that there isn't consensus, and I question his neutrality as a mediator if he's going to make declarations like that before mediation has even started. I also find it incredibly hypocritical to insist that both sides stop moving after you just made unilateral page moves and edits yourself. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it just looks like Elonka is misrepresenting the medcom comments, he seems to be saying that there was no consensus for TMNT moves, not that there's no consensus for this policy. Demon, my apologies, I should have read your statement instead of taking Elonka's word for it. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As a clarification, I did not issue a ruling on this guideline as to whether or not it reflects consensus. That is not within my power on the MedCom to do. We do not establish consensus. Elonka, I would appreciate it if you did not say otherwise. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like just good old Star Trek at this point. The arbcom could take weeks or months, is it absolutely necessary to wait until that's over to consider that last show? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• ArbCom cases are not actionable until they conclude. So unless the ArbCom passes an emergency injunction against this, there's no need to wait. Go ahead. (Radiant) 14:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I strongly protest making any such moves, and I am shocked that an administrator would encourage someone to move forward with controversial moves without going through WP:RM. --Elonka 21:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• That is circular reasoning: you oppose the moves because you say they're controversial, and you say they're controversial because you oppose them. You know very well that in fact none of these moves are controversial, and neither do your words make them so. I note you have also opposed using RM for this kind of moves, so in effect you are contradicting yourself by referring people to the process if it's not used, and stopping the process if it is used. Consensus is not unanimity, and consensus for this guideline is well established by discussion here, and confirmed by several RM polls. (Radiant) 22:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If the Star Trek moves go forward at this point, I think it would be best for them to be done through RM. That way the consensus can be clear and unambiguous, and dissenters can have their say. I fully expect a sufficient majority to pass a normal move request. Failing that, we can wait for the ArbCom ruling, which will presumably address the question of whether this guideline has consensus or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As much as I hate the unnecessary bureaucracy, that's probably the most "safe" way to do it. Does it make the most sense to do a separate RM for each separate show, just as a matter of practicality and avoiding having a huge number of episodes in one RM? And assuming separate RM's, should the next wait until the previous has closed and moved, or if discussion dies down on one does it make sense to start the next one? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think move requests should be per-series just to keep things sane. As for the timing, I don't think it makes much of a difference. They'll each be open for a week, so there's plenty of opportunity for people to weigh in. –  Anþony  talk  23:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• You can do them simultaneously, even (but with a separate request per series). It would make it easier for people to compare arguments or to give their opinion once rather than four times. Doing related items side-by-side rather than one after the other is common at AFD/CFD/TFD as well. (Radiant) 08:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not shoving them all through Request Moves. Yes, RM is meant to be 5 days, but they often get backlogged. And putting together dozens of articles together means we'll have to wait a long time before there's a closing admin willing to do it. I'll put one article from each series through RM, and make note that if the RM comes through, i will follow suite with all the other articles. --`/aksha 11:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• That is a sensible and non-bureaucratic approach. (Radiant) 12:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek#Nomenclature are pretty clear. I recommend that you first check that there is consensus to change that page, before trying to move articles. --Elonka 23:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that if the pages end up getting moved, it makes sense to (by consensus of course) change the corresponding naming as well. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The guidlines Elonka linked to only tell people how to disambiguate star trek articles - which is sensible (to have articles disambiguated in the same way). The most we need is to add an extra note about when to disambiguate star trek articles (that is, not to bother when no disambiguation is needed). I'm about to file the request moves through tonight - and i'll be certain to leave a note on all the related Star Trek articles. The star trek editors will have a chance to come and have their say. I doubt anyone who couldn't even be bothered to add a "support" or "oppose" to a few Request Moves would participate in discussion about changing the related guidelines. --`/aksha 07:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Procedural question

Is it possible to file the move requests as "all episodes of Star Trek:Series Name that have unnecessary disambiguation", with a handful of examples? I understand that making a list of all the episodes to be moved would be a pain in the ass, and may be more bureaucracy than is necessary, but I think it's important that editors understand that they're speaking about the general principle (preemptive disambiguation for Star Trek episode titles) as much as the specific example (moving A Fistful of Datas (TNG episode) to A Fistful of Datas, or whatever the representative episode for each series is).

If that sort of filing is kosher, we could do it in one fell swoop, centralizing the discussion at one location (don't much care where that is). I don't expect that the arguments for and against predisambiguating Deep Space Nine will be any different from the arguments for and against predisambiguating Enterprise, and it seems redundant to have the same discussion six times. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• You could point to the relevant categories as an auto-generated list instead of making a list yourself. No need to be overly bureaucratic about things. >Radiant< 08:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. My point is that if we're planning on using the RM discussion to determine/show the consensus for the naming convention (and its application to Star Trek episodes), we should be explicit that that's what we're doing. My interest is in honesty, not bureaucracy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I was planning to pick out one episode from each of the 6 Star Trek seasons which moving, and bundle the 6 together into one Request Move. In that one Request Move, i will also explain how this extends to all the other Star Trek episode articles - so if the Request Move results in support for move, i will move all the other star trek episode articles which need moving. The only thing i wasn't sure about was where to put the Request Move. People have expressed that they don't want to see any more request moves here. So i was thinking maybe the talk page for the main Star Trek article? Or maybe even the talk page for the Star Trek wikiproject. Any suggestions? I'm leaning heavily towards the wikiproject talk page right now...but i'm a little worried about putting an article move request onto a project talk page. --`/aksha 09:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as the request makes it clear that what's being discussed is "all Star Trek episodes like these examples" rather than "these six Star Trek episodes", that should be fine. And having the discussion at the Star Trek WikiProject's talk page makes sense to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would do it on the main Trek talk page, and put notices on the six articles mentioned plus the talk page for each series plus the episode list for each series and the wikiproject. If there's anywhere else appropriate, go for it. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Turned out there's actually a main "list of Star Trek episodes" article, something i completely missed before. --`/aksha 06:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed moves for episodes of The Wire

Request move for Clash of the Turtle Titans (TMNT 2003 Episode) --> Clash of the Turtle Titans

Please don't hold any more move requests here

Since we seem to be going down the path of holding RMs for every series to show consensus, I'd like to request that the RMs be held at the various List of <series> episodes pages. Since most of us agree that it doesn't much matter where the poll is being held, putting the poll with the series means that the discussion will be archived with the series and easier to find in the future. I don't know why anyone would think to look in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Episode title RfC 3 to find a move request on Lost, but lo, it's there. I would suggest moving it from that archive to Talk:List of Lost episodes, but I'm not sure if that's kosher.

Further this page is clogged up enough with just two of these. If we start nominating Star Trek articles... hooo-boy. Think of the children, man. Think of the children. –  Anþony  talk  14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with this - I only did the one for the Wire here because the previous RM was done here and I don't think anyone objected to the location of discussion in that case. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I've standardized the names of the archive pages. Getting fancy with those doesn't help much. The redirects to them are still available if anyone is attached to the descriptive names. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd support future move requests being held on pages related to the series in question. I don't think it's appropriate to move existing move requests, but we should make sure that there are notes about these RMs on the relevant series and "list of x episodes" talk pages. (I think there are.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that would be good, but a note for any future RM's should be made here since we are all interested editors and aren't necessarily watching those pages. Just a little "A move request has been made, the discussion is here." type thing. Jay32183 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I assumed that would happen. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

With the two Request Moves that are still open, can we finish them here, but copy and paste them onto the relavent talk pages after they are finished? With the already completed Lost Request Move, i'll copy it from the archieve and dump it onto the "list of lost episodes" talk page. --`/aksha 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's done. The Lost REquest Move has been copied over to Talk:List_of_Lost_episodes#Requested_move, and will eventually be also archieved there with all the other Lost related discussion. --`/aksha 02:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

MedCab Request for Statements

A "Mediation Cabal" page has been opened, at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Naming conventions (television). All parties to this dispute (and anyone else who wishes to participate) are requested to post statements there, indicating their versions of: (1) What the dispute is about, (2) what you think of it, and (3) what you think we should do to solve it. Thanks, --Elonka 20:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Since multiple parties have refused the second mediation on the grounds of bad faith behaviour on the part of Elonka and the potential mediator, and since there's now an ArbCom case requested, there may not be much point to adding comments there. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

It doesn't seem like our current informal mediation with the MedCabal is going to work. And ArbCom seems quite inevitable since we can't seem to resolve this ourselves. So i've jumped ahead and filed in an ArbCom request for this dispute (here).

Including everyone who's ever expressed an opinion in this issue would be impossible. So i've listed only the five of us who've been most involved in this dispute (mostly based on Wknight's Count) as the "involved parties". I'm hoping none of the people who're not listed mind not being included(i don't think you'll miss out on much anyway).

Hopefully arbitration will end this soap opera once and for all. --`/aksha 13:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha.. that seems very sneaky.. choose 4 people that support your position only Elonka who represents "our side" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the polls have shown about a 4-to-1 breakdown, so it's a pretty accurate representation, actually. As I understand it, any interested parties can submit a statement and make themselves participants, so go ahead and add your two cents. –  Anþony  talk  13:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at my count article that Yaksha cited. At that point, you'd only made about ¼ of the number of edits here as the people listed. I had an RFAR ready to go (before Yaksha beat me to it - and did a damn fine job I might add) and I didn't include you as a party either. If you feel you've added something to the discussion (aside from echoing Elonka's statements and making the occasional snide comment), then jump in. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you really want to be a party, just ask. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

as i said, wknight's count was what i used. Since the discussion is based here, the count accurately reflects how much participation people have had in this dispute, so i don't see why it isn't fair. Matthew, if you're really serious about wanting to participate in the case, then by all means go ahead. Just add your name to the list of involved parties, and write up your statement.

I should point out that once a case is accepted, it gets a seperate subpage, as well as an evidence page. IIRC, anyone (not just the involved parties) can add comments to the talk page, or help provide evidence. So as i said, you're really not missing out on much. --`/aksha 09:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that Yaksha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) went through and moved another batch of articles, without any attempt at RM procedure, and in violation of the existing guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes. I request that all of those moves be reverted, so as to minimize confusion in the ArbCom case. --Elonka 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, I see no consensus on that page or the talk page which comes into conflict with the naming conventions which have been repeatedly defended and agreed upon here. These naming conventions are all that Yaksha is acting on. In fact, in regard to the opinion of the page you mentioned, the closest thing to a naming discussion was this section. The section clearly shows a preference for simple, unsuffixed names, especially because of the perceived incorrectness of having a redirect from the unsuffixed title.

Furthermore, I'd ask that you cease incivilly singling out Yaksha and desist using our attempts to resolve this issue, such as the RfM and Arbitration request, as reason to add the unofficial "disputed-use" template to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) project page without any real consensus.

Elonka, consensus is what matters in these situations. You can give all the (highly disputable) "evidence" you want, but it's still nothing if (almost) no one agrees with you. And, without any agreement, your actions are simply the kind of distruptive point making Wikipedia frowns upon. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, being so sneaky as to use a tag that looks like {{disputedpolicy}}, but isn't, is misleading to anyone who comes to this page. I think this is a clear violation of WP:POINT, and probably a few genuine policies as well. --BlueSquadronRaven 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that tag is the one that was designed by Ned Scott, which I am willing to accept as a compromise version. [9] --Elonka 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha. We know you didn't make it Elonka, but just like people occasionally caving to your...debating methods...Ned's actions are in no way an endorsement of yours or that template itself. You do not have the needed consensus or, frankly, proper reasoning, to add "disputedpolicy". The unofficial template has even less place, as I've stated to you before. Just as you could not create a template like...say..."–  Be like me  Ignore this " and force it on the "tea" page. Please, stop this. These distruptions aren't helping anyone or anything, especially you and your case. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, one way or the other. The big reason I didn't like the tag before is because I felt it was a stalling tactic, or being used to gain some sort of false credibility to the claims being made. Since there's an ArbCom case about this, it won't really matter much, as the Arbitration Committee will take their time and really look into the matter. It won't make a stronger case for one side or the other. The potential abuse of the dispute tag is minimized. -- Ned Scott 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

TV vs. television issue

Been a month of wars with mediation and now an RFAR ---- so why not throw another issue into the mix?!  :)

What do folks here think about Centrx (talk · contribs) changing the guideline from TV to television? I was for it and was going to put together the world's largest WP:RM to try and knock that issue out with one shot - but after a quick scan, I'll take a wild guess that several thousand articles and categories would be included. I'd have to report myself for violating WP:POINT!

So what's the initial opinion from this front? I like the idea and a bot could do the bulk of the moves but I'm honestly not sure it's worth the aggravation. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

TV is an unambiguous term which is nice and short, I see no problem with it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The arguments here are going to be simplicity vs professionalism. That seems like a debate that either won't resolve or will always go back and forth. So it would seems the best solution is to choose arbitrarily, except that everything already uses TV, except the artilce television, which doesn't fall into the same category. Personally, I would prefer television, but TV doesn't bother me at all. I agree that if the pages are moved that a bot should do it. Jay32183 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Television" is less ambiguous, though most would agree "TV" is the common shorthand. Still, "television" is also more official. Wikipedia seems to to prefer "official" versus "common". The sute uses ambiguous "film" rather than "movie" due to the latter being less formal. Personally, don't care which, but I'd say there probably won't be much benefit in changing anything with "TV" in the title. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, "television" sounds more encyclopedic than "TV" to me. That said, I don't see any actual ambiguity in "TV" — I don't think any readers are going to think it refers to transvestites or the T-V distinction, or any of the other meanings at TV (disambiguation). And I don't think that Ace is right in saying that Wikipedia supports "offical" names over common ones: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), which could be used to support "TV". Like Will, I'd support the move but I fear the hassle would outweigh the benefits. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict w/Josiah) I just think a dab tag like "(animated television series)" is too long and just plain inconvenient for editors. "TV" is about the most recognizable and unambiguous acronyms ever (none of these come close), one that's certainly entered the mainstream even in professional publications. TV Guide, Yahoo TV, and other businesses use TV in their brand names. Reuters and the AP are comfortable using the acronym in their articles (Reuters AP). Wikipedia explicitly does not favor the "official" name, but rather the common name. As for film vs. movie, the discussion at that guideline ("Movie" is a bad choice) included reasoning beyond just professionalism: "movie" is more of an American term and "film" is a broader category than "movies". –  Anþony  talk  20:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For the longer ones like "animated television series" there is a more compelling reason to shorten it it to "animated TV series" and in addition it is much more immediately clear what is meant, in contrast to "TV series". Still, for others we would have an attack of the abbreviations "US TV series" and "BBC TV series". —Centrx→talk • 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I say just go with TV. "Television" would be more 'professional', but as Centrx pointed out, TV is becoming more and more used and accepted as a substitute for "television". So i don't really see moving all those articles as being worth the trouble. --`/aksha 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The articles don't have to be moved en masse, but new articles and articles you happen to encounter should be. Also, this is a long-term international project and it is an encyclopedia, not the TV Guide or a news website. —Centrx→talk • 02:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

TV Guide and Yahoo TV evidence that the term is not ambiguous and instantly recongizable -- these businesses make their living off of TV, so they would surely try to avoid confusion if it were a serious concern. Reuters and AP (and the BBC[10] and The Washington Post[11]) are professional organizations that have a prescribed professional style and they have no problem using TV. If it doesn't reflect poorly on them, it doesn't reflect poorly on us. TV isn't likely to go away any time soon and if even if it did, it wouldn't be that difficult to make the change then. In fact, I would argue that use of "TV" is going to increase with the proliferation of HDTV -- practically no one says "high definition television". TV is more than four times more common than television per Google: 289 Mghits for television[12], compared to 1260 Mghits for TV.[13] –  Anþony  talk  15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

TV is fine with me. Jay32183 17:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with using "television" in the text of the guideline, but for disambiguation tags I prefer TV over television. Article names can get long, and there's no ambiguity what "TV" means. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, they make their living off of being easily recognizable to their target audience, that is, Americans right now. This does not mean it will be easily recognizable to people in other lands in several years. —Centrx→talk • 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there an english speaking country where "TV" isn't commonly recognized as an abbreviation for television? And I'm not sure what you mean by "in several years", is that speculation that the abbreviation may be disused and forgotten? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See UKTV, Yahoo TV UK, previous example of the BBC using "TV", ROO TV Australia, yourTV.com.au, ABC TV (Australian Broadcasting Company), CTV, The CBC's history of TV, TVNZ, TV3 (New Zealand). How many more examples would you like? Believe it or not, TV truly is an international term. The argument that it might not be, eventually, makes no sense because it would be just as easy to fix the problem when it becomes a problem as it is now. There's also the whole thing about Wikipedia not being a crystal ball, but I don't think I need to remind anyone of that. –  Anþony  talk  17:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"television" will always be the correct term and will never warrant changing. See also article Television, which is, as is right, not at TV. —Centrx→talk • 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What makes "TV" any less correct? And why would you think it might someday warrant changing? While I certainly agree that "television" is more formal, I don't see any reason that it is more "correct" or less ambiguous. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity is just an example of what happens when using abbreviations or informal style. "TV" has several possible meanings; "television" has only one (or two, closely linked). There is no way that "television" is equally or more ambiguous than "TV". —Centrx→talk • 23:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

While TV can mean things other than television, none of the other abbreviations are remotely as common. If you ask the average person what TV means, virtually anyone would say "television". "US" is listed as the abbreviation for many things, yet we still use it for disambiguation because by far the most common usage is "United States." Even if "television" may be less ambiguious, "TV" is certainly nonambiguous enough. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I've just found the trump card here. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) explicitly says that acronyms in article titles are to be avoided (thus television), but as disambiguators, well-known acronyms such as "US" or "UK" are encouraged, to minimize typing. Can we change the guideline back now? –  Anþony  talk  22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Orrrrr... we could just change Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) to match what this guideline says! =) (just kidding). For the record, I'm fine either way. Television looks a little more polished to me but not enough to go to the mat over it. WP:NCA seems like a good fallback position. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Although I'd prefer television it look like in general that TV should be used to save typing in the disambiguator. So I say we stick with (TV series). Jay32183 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm about where Wknight94 is: "television" looks more formal to me, but WP:NCA makes sense and I don't care about it that much, really. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So can we change the guideline back now? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For God's sake, could the lot of you have tagged the dispute on the guideline page? I referred to a version of the page that used "television", and I've been moving pages and updating redirects for the past couple of days. No point being made here, just a lot of frustration. -ryand 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the page was locked soon after that change was made (without real consensus) so none of us were able to fix it for a few days (when it was unlocked by the admin who made the edit). Perfect example of why changes like that shouldn't be made until there's a clear decision. Sorry about the mess it created. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, i'm quite sure of it. I believe we chose TV to be used in disambiguators, because, as mentioned by  Anþony , Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) explicitly say that acronyms in article titles are to be avoided, but as disambiguators, well-known acronyms such as "US" or "UK" are encouraged, to minimize typing. We also added the rule of using (television) for anything relating to the more general technology/proces/field of TV, because TV without a 2nd disambiguator (such as series) is considerably more ambiguous then "television". 2ndary disambiguating words add more context and as such allow an acronym to be read more easily. You could say that "television series" by itself is not long enough, but when you start adding countries and stuff into the mix as well, it definetly is. Note also that the acronym is not used in categories for instance. This is due to the NC of categories which say that short names are not relevant in categorization, because correct and exact categorization is more important. The acronym is however widely used by stub templates (again because of ease of typing), but also only where 2ndary disambiguating words are used as well. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Once more unto the breech...

Okay, it's been said in this discussion that there are those who dare not tread into the middle of this because the discussion is quite heated and all over the place. Honestly, I'm largely confused myself, since the debate has been more than one-sided. But, since there's an active arbitration request filed, I thought I'd give it one more go for clarity on the issues...

First, there's the notion that articles about individual episodes of one television series in particular (Lost (TV series)) should be pre-emptively disambiguated by adding (Lost) or (Lost episode) to the end of the article title. Could someone explain to me how this would be reconciled with existing guidelines in Wikipedia:Disambiguation, which states quite clearly near the top of the page: When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page. I point to Wikipedia:Disambiguation specifically as being undisputed, the product of consensus, and applicable equally to all articles on Wikipedia, not just a subset such as television episodes.

Second, there's been raised the idea that individual WikiProjects be allowed to create their own guidelines regarding articles within their scope, and to have those guidelines respected by other editors. Again, this applies to (primarily) one project dealing with one television show (Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost). Were this the case, how would this be reconciled with Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes? WP:TVE is also a WikiProject, with its own guidelines, and has all television episode articles from all television series as its scope, thus bringing the two into direct conflict. Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes states, in part, If there is no disambiguation, the name of the article should be the episode title written with the corresponding capital letters. and When disambiguation is needed, the name will also include a parenthesis clarification with the title of the series. and then proceeds to give two examples of articles where disambiguation is not needed, ironically both from episodes of Lost.

Finally, there is the fact that all we are talking about here, largely, are guidelines, and every guideline states, right at the top of the page in a pretty template, It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. What, exactly, is the common-sense reasoning behind pre-emptively disambiguating episode articles? Consistancy, while important to a degree in Wikipedia formatting, does not seem to justify an exception to one small subcategory of articles. Alternately, if we were to accept the policy of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which states quite succinctly and bluntly, If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them., how would pre-emptive disambiguation improve this one group of articles in a manner that was justifiable above all other similar articles?

These are the issues I've come across through who-knows how much debate on this and many other pages. I would appreciate answers to these questions in the form of rational, thought-out arguments, or, if I have misrepresented the issues here, clarification on just what it is everyone's on about. Cheers. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll let Elonka and/or MatthewFenton expound on them. From what I remember of those posts 10 zillion posts ago, the main point was a sake of consistency so readers would know exactly what they were reading about. Two good counterpoints to that were 1.) the first sentence of the article is supposed to tell the reader what the article is about, not the title (otherwise, Samuel Pasco would have to be renamed Samuel Pasco (19th century Florida politician) because no one knows who the hell Samuel Pasco was). And 2.) how often are people going to accidentally arrive at an episode of Lost anyway? They just happened to type "All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues" in the search box? No, 98% of the time, they will have navigated there from another article or category about Lost and then the context would be obvious. Other reasons given for pre-dabbing were weaker like the fact that they are easier to spot in your Watchlist, etc. The culture of Wikipedia has simply been that you make an article easier to find and identify by grouping it with similar articles, not by marking the title of the article in some way. The former is professional looking and succinct - the latter is a kludge. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with wknight94) You're pretty much correct in your summary, Raven. Most of the questions you ask have been asked before, and the people who disagree with the current guideline have given various answers to some of them. Although I found these answers unsatisfactory, I'll attempt to present a few of them to the best of my ability, as an exercise in "writing for the enemy".

The most common reply to your first question (how to reconcile preemptive disambiguation here with the general guideline WP:D) has been that all guidelines are subject to common-sense exceptions, and disambiguating all episodes of a given series is regarded by some as "common sense". However, since many editors disagree with this assessment, it seems reasonable to me to use discussion to determine how widespread this notion is — and the discussion here has shown many more editors who do not consider this proposed exception to be "common-sense". Also regarding WP:D, at one point, some editors were claiming that the parenthetical suffix after the episode name wasn't actually disambiguation, but something else. (I never quite understood that argument.)

I don't think your second question has been answered, so I won't attempt to speak for anyone there. As for the third question, I believe that the standard reply has been based on the notion that there is value in giving all articles in a category a consistent-looking naming scheme. (This, of course, ignores the fact that the general Wikipedia disambiguation guidelines advocate disambiguation only when necessary, and provide in themselves a form of Wikipedia-wide consistency.) I'm not sure why this argument is supposed to be valid in the area of television episodes but not for other categories, but that's been the argument. I (and others) feel the "consistency" argument to be merely an aesthetic judgment unsupported by (and contrary to) other Wikipedia guidelines and policy, such as WP:D.

There was also an argument made suggesting that it was good for article titles to provide context for the articles. This, however, is not what article naming is for, and is adequately taken care of by the first line of the article and the category system.

If I have misrepresented the positions of those who oppose this guideline, please accept my apologies and provide corrections. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise Request

• From the Mediator....

After much review of your statements and your links to historic events in this long-ranging dispute, I believe the first poll that was conducted reached consensus under the policy of when consensus is reached-[14]. I believe that since the first vote had a large precentage in the affirmative and while it seems only Elonka wishes to continue this dispute, the poll should be the factor here. While a few others also oppose the poll, another poll would not work, unless...Unless it could be under strict scrutiny of a mediator (not myself). A compromise in this dispute seems very difficult to reach, but it seems that at this level of mediation, we must reach one. And therefore I offer to Elonka and the others who oppose consensus that was reached (note that polls are evil [15]) that since you are in the minority, you cannot proceed this further. All must agree to the consensus, but, but! But if this dispute rages on for another week (which it most likely will) I ask that you allow me to sumbit the following to a mediator I am friends with:

Dear ----, there is currently a dispute that I have dealt with, they wish for an informal mediator to review a Survey that wish to produce. You may find the link here ---,

Cheers, Wikizach

So please comment on this, thank you, WikieZach| talk 01:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and input, but the case has already been gone to ArbCom, so further mediation won't be required. If you would like, it might be helpful to add your voice and point of view to the ArbCom case. You have already been quoted there as saying consensus has been reached, so you might wish to weigh in at least on that. –  Anþony  talk  02:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Zach, thanks for your work on this, but I'm afraid it's too late. Since the case has been accepted at ArbCom, I doubt that Elonka and Matthew will accept this finding, and I don't think that there's much point in further arbitration while we're under arbitration. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, Zachiboy, I would have thought the lack of response four days ago would have been enough. Talk about not "taking the hint". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom notice?

Is it standard practice to invite people to an RFAR? [16] —Wknight94 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

At the top of the NC Evidence page, it says that anyone can add evidence, regardless of whether or not they're involved. Also, in this particular case where there are many editors involved, but only a small number were listed as actual parties, I believe that it makes sense to post notices to ensure that everyone is aware of the case. Then anyone who wants to add themselves as a party to the case, can do so. Or, people can just post a statement or some evidence or participate at the workshop page, as other people are already doing.

To review past cases, see Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. Also look at the talk page of a recent dispute, where statements by parties were summarized, as "involved, non-involved, concerned", etc: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. --Elonka 20:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, wknight94's question needs some emphasis... Is it standard practice to invite people to an RFAR? --Serge 21:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know it was standard practice to invite people to join in a poll, I guess this is little different, to some. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. You know, maybe people should start donating directly to Elonka. All this distruptive campaigning and whatnot surely needs proper funding, right, guys? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we donate to you as well for the "distruptive" behaviour ;-)? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Remind me, Matty, when was the last time I added anything to the project page without consensus? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the last time you where in revert warrior mode removing tags? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, Matthew, Matthew! Are you paying attention? I said "added". A person can't be faulted—in most cases–for accidently breaking 3RR when reverting persistant vandalism. My reverts were a common sense—not "good faith"—exception to the rule(s). Now, I ask you Matthew, when have I added anything to the page? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you asked someone called "Matty" - I am just commenting as "Matty" obviously is AFK. I also do not believe you have actually made any aadditions to this page (maybe because you where to busy edit warring?) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see where ACS made edits that were contrary to consensus, either adding or removing. Could you provide a diff? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(GAH! I keep trying to post and you two keep giving me edit conflicts! Stop already!) I'm looking through Elonka's cited example (the Non-Notability case) and I'm not finding anything in the history of Wikipedia:Notability/Historical/Non-notability or Wikipedia talk:Notability/Historical/Non-notability where the ArbCom case was advertised. Apparently people found it on their own.

I don't see a problem with the note at the top of the talk page, but I strongly object to the notice on the guideline itself. Any kind of notice (dispute tag, RFAR tag, whatever) on the guideline itself gives the impression that somehow the guideline is not in effect and need not be followed. That may well be Elonka's intent, but the guideline has broad consensus support and is still in effect unless ArbCom says otherwise. –  Anþony  talk  23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the conflicts, Anpho. You certainly stated things very well. In fact, the issues you raised are the ones that really spurred my "edit warrior mode". ::::::And Matthew, it's better to revert with consensus than to add without. However, if you'd like, I'll personally ask to make the next consensus supported edit to the project page. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd already removed the notice. Such things may be suitable for talk pages, but notices of ArbCom dispute resolution proceedings are certainly not appropriate at the head of WP guideline/policy pages. --Leflyman^Talk 23:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently, Elonka again attempted to tag this guideline as "disputed" -- which has rightly been reverted. I fail to see how such edit-warring by Ms. Dunin is at all helpful, or favourable in light of the concerns about her behaviour currently being raised in the ArbCom case. To clarify, a single (or couple) of editor's belief that a particular guideline is unclear, incomplete or in need of revision does not immediately make it is a "disputed" guideline. If so, every policy page would be thus tagged as "disputed". :) --Leflyman^Talk 05:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Leflyman, the editor who issued two revenge AfD nominations against biographies of members of my family (neither of which were successful, I might add). Are you sure you want to be commenting about my behavior, with an open ArbCom case in-process? --Elonka 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Revenge AfD nominations"? That's hilarious-- for what, pray tell? What she is referring to are two (among the many) biographic articles she authored about her ancestors this year, based entirely on her own original research-- in clear contradiction to WP:COI. The inappropriate nature of such articles have been pointed out by numerous parties, and even had Jimbo Wales removing nearly all the content in one (about Ms. Dunin's mother). My nomination of them was no different than nominations of any number of other non-notable bio articles. However, one might well take such a statement as, "Are you sure you want to be commenting...with an open ArbCom case in-process?" as some sort of a veiled threat -- which certainly doesn't reflect well on Ms. Dunin's claims of civility.--Leflyman^Talk 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

New survey to clarify "use common names" guideline/convention

There is a new survey to clarify the meaning/applicability of the "use common names" guideline/convention. See WT:NC#Proposal: clarify meaning of "use most common name" guideline. --Serge 00:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

Okay, over the course of twenty-foir hours, Elonka has repeatedmade edits to the project page without consensus. How many times must it be said to you, El? "No consensus, no edits, period." This isn't debatable and the edits Elonka has made certainly are not exceptions of any kind. Adding an official template without following the rules required to apply that template is inappropriate. Adding an unofficial template based on the official one is not appropriate. If Elonka persists, I see only two definitive resolutions, as she clearly won't accept our attempts to reason with her.

1. Blonking. Harsh, I know, but we've definitely entered into a distruptive, unreasonable area.
2. Full protection. This was already implemented once, but an administrator undid it abruptly. Oh and that admin also happened to have his "'television' over 'tv'" proposition denounced by consensus.

Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The unprotection and the dispute that was the reason for this protection was totally unrelated to television vs. TV. I have made one edit to this page, after there was agreement for it on the talk page and, before cursorily reading the beginning of the Arbcom case, which was after the unprotection, I had no idea what this dispute was about. Pages, Wikipedia guideline pages included, should not remain protected for long periods of time; you are all capable of not edit warring and should restrain yourselves. Also, I don't see that your tangential remark is at all appropriate or relevant to your dispute, and you should look up what the word "denounced" means. —Centrx→talk • 05:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking up at the discussion of this, I certainly don't see agreement for it. There's some lukewarm support, but most in favor seem only slightly so and acknowledge that a change would entail moving thousands of articles. For such a huge change with such wide consequences, I think you should have stronger support. I also agree there's potential conflict of interest when an admin is editing and unprotecting the same article, even if the edits are different than the reason for protection. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

See [17], which is the relevant discussion before the change, with rather strong support. Regardless, the point is that it has nothing to do with this dispute or the page protection and I don't see why it is mentioned here. —Centrx→talk • 22:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Even easier solution - just revert the tag. There's no consensus to add a disputed tag, so i doubt we're short of people willing to revert when the disputed tag gets slapped on. I'm sure Elonka's well aware of the 3-revert-rule. --`/aksha 09:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an ArbCom going on now. Anyone think something along the lines of "Declaring an active guideline "in dispute" without consensus is disruptive" might be an appropriate addition? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I object to the use of a non-standard tag to make it look on the surface like one thing, yet leaves out key parts of the original. As such, I've listed Elonka's behaviour on WP:AN/I. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly a dispute about the contents of this guideline. How can anyone looking at the multiple archives of this page, at the Mediation proceeding, at MedCab, and at the now open ArbCom case, say that there isn't a dispute? --Elonka 23:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Our debates with you have little to do with the contents of the guideline. As the unofficial tag states, it's the use which is in dispute. Furthermore, consensus was not to add the dab parentheses unless it is for disambiguation reasons rather than stylistic ones. Then there's the Wikipedia policy of following the guideline by default. Unless you "win" so to speak, you have no grounds to add any sort of tag. Finally, you added it without consensus while I removed it with consensus. You can debate the use of this guideline all you want, but implying that it's not valid simply because you don't agree with it is biased and highly inappropriate. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Quarl's thoughts

Sigh. This disambiguate-when-needed vs consistent name business is such a classic color of the bikeshed issue. Let's focus on more constructive work. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-19 08:45Z

(Personal attack removed)

I agree that a huge amount of time has been wasted because a couple individuals have refused to accept consensus. Actually, one of the main reasons I don't favor making exceptions to a rule like this without a good reason is that making it "case by case" just means this debate would happen over and over again for each individual show. If people would just follow WP:D we would all be making an encyclopedia right now. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And Elonka would say "yeah, let's stop wasting time and just do another poll like I wanted weeks ago". Quarl, the best thing to do is just not leave a message here lest you should get sucked down into the abyss as well... Let the ArbCom sort it out since that's apparently the only thing that will stop the disruption. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement that an enormous amount of time and energy has been wasted here. Guidelines on Wikipedia are supposed to reflect current practice, but rather than accept that, a few editors here have decided to change the guideline, and force thousands of articles to new names, against clear and repeated objections. The amount of time that has been spent moving articles which didn't need moving, truly boggles my mind. How is this helpful to an encyclopedia, when there's real work that needs doing? --Elonka 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think that's a waste of time, someone is actually proposing that all those articles be moved back [18], if you can believe that. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, what's really tiring is you misrepresenting the facts. Guidelines reflect common sense practices and only change when needed based on the appropriate exceptions. Stylist reasons don't count. Several Wikipedians have expressed opinions, moved articles and otherswise aided or complied the "disambiguate only when ambiguous" side. "Clear and repeated objections"? That sounds almost weaselly. Who objected? You? Matt? What were the reasons? Why, praytell did these "repeated objections" go ignored? The only answer I can think of is that you were in the superminority and perceived as wrong. The claim that the articles "didn't need moving" is also subjective, if not mere bias on your part. And, Elonka, I'm sure everyone would gladly move on when you quit making these ineffective objections. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines on Wikipedia are supposed to reflect current practice - no, they are supposed to reflect good practice. Rich Farmbrough, 14:36 21 December 2006 (GMT).

DJ's thoughts

Woahaa. You leave wikipedia be for a couple of months and all hell seems to have broken loose in one of my pet-guidelines. And all that apparently because of the "Star Trek" exception? I thought the rules were all pretty clear and all came out of quite strong concensus for the past 2 years. There was an exception for Star Trek, because the WP Star Trek had had a different naming convention for years and the idea was that no one wanted to change all the episode titles (at least that's my recollection). Now I agree that everyone was just "doing" something, and not paying very much attention to said portion of the guideline at all. However since the "relevance/notability" of episode articles was an even LARGER controversy, I think nobody really made a priority of it. Apparently no longer the case :D

BTW: I'm in favor of the original prime NC that says disambiguation is not required unless there is a wikipedia article with the same name.

BTW2: For the people who spent too much time on this. I suggest you divert your attention to properly categorizing series. That seems way more important to me. Or start your own Fandom wiki for your favourite series. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

DJ and Quarl are both correct that the amount of time and energy spent in this disagreement has been completely disproportionate to its importance. I'll leave the finger-pointing to the ArbCom case, but as a historical note (so that DJ and other folks who haven't been following this closely don't have to dig through all the archives), the reason this erupted was due to a disagreement about how to title Lost episode pages: some people wanted to follow the Star Trek example, while others wanted to follow the general Wikipedia style (disambiguating only when necessary). Both sides used this naming convention to support their arguments (to follow the general rule or the Star Trek exception — the latter reasoning that if it was good enough for Star Trek, it was good enough for Lost). Eventually the debate spread and metastasized, like a cancer, until we reached the current sorry state. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

While I totally agree that it's really sad that this minor issue has gotten this far, it's not a total loss. I think it sheds some light on similar problems and how we can deal with them faster, rather than avoiding them. (for the same reasons one would want to avoid this dispute) There's a lot of things we let "slide" because it's so silly to have to argue them and have such debates. A lot of little small things can add up to some real problems on Wikipedia. So hopefully we can learn from this situation and resolve similar issues faster without needless drama, instead of just ignoring them and allowing them to pile up. That being said, we'll all be glad when it's over with.. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Elonka. The main guideline was never in dispute, only what warrants an exception to it. Perhaps you'd care to shed light on your reasoning here to help clarify things, rather than making such statements? --BlueSquadronRaven 09:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Time to archive again?

The conversation has slowed down a bit on this page, at least. The page is currently 118KB. Would it interfere with anyone's ArbCom links if we archived it again? I was thinking of archiving everything except #Programs needing to be moved (update) and #Quarl's thoughts, which are current discussions. Objections? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in keeping it here. But anyway, i'm going to get rid of the two Request Moves. I don't see the need to archieve them here, since they've been copied and pasted to more relative talk pages already (Talk:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) episodes and Talk:List of The Wire episodes), and they'll be archieved there. --`/aksha 09:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC) On second thought, no. I would rather keep the Request Moves here for now. Those two sections of this talk page are linked to a lot in both the evidence and workshop pages. So unless anyone feels like going through the ArbCom case and doing a lot of link correctly, let's keep them here for now. --`/aksha 09:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Request Move for Star Trek episode articles

Talk:List of Star Trek episodes#Requested move

Okay, one last Request Move. This one is for all the Star Trek episode articles. I've taken one episode article from each of the six Star Trek seasons. If this Request Move suceeds (concludes with support for move), then i'll go ahead and move all the other Star Trek episode articles.

So, one last call for participation. All input will be appreciated. Thanks --`/aksha 10:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned the move request on the Star Trek WikiProject's talk page, for courtesy's sake. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure those are all of the Star Trek episodes with unnecessary disambig? What about If Wishes Were Horses as just one example? -- Wikipedical 17:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

They're not. Read my opening statement on the Request Move. I'd hoped the "important note" in bold would draw enough attention. --`/aksha 23:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So what's the status on these? What remains, and are there any hurdles before the rest can be moved? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as i can see, none. The Request Move got closed by a neutral by-passing admin. The said admin moved the six pages involved in the Request Move, and i've gotten started with all the remaining articles. Four of the 6 Star Trek seasons are now done. --`/aksha 23:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's one more

Category:House (TV series) episodes. >Radiant< 10:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• And also, Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes isn't really according to NC yet. >Radiant< 10:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll go check Category:House (TV series) episodes later. Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes is already done. There're still quite some articles there with disambiguation, but it's only because a lot of Buffy Episodes have names that're already used by something else (mostly music albums). --`/aksha 12:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Are you sure about that? Bargaining, Part One (Buffy episode) does not require disambig. There may be some others. >Radiant< 12:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

hmm...I must have left the two-part episodes alone on purpose. I think it was because i had been planning to merge then. Things like "Bargaining, Part One" and "Bargaining, Part Two" are just two parts of the same episode - it should just be one "Bargaining (Buffy episode)" article. I'll move then now (to get rid of the disambiguation), and if they get merged in the future, the dabbing can just get added back on. --`/aksha 23:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the House episodes, I think they're all good now. Apparently Josiah went through over a month ago and moved them. Athaenara (talk · contribs) moved them back a few days ago citing a series-specific naming convention I can't find. Ned moved some of them back, but he missed a couple for some reason. –  Anþony  talk  14:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Insensitive (House episode) might need to be moved as well, as insensitive is just a redirect to sensitivity (human), which is itself just a dict-def stub and could probably be deleted. Insensitive has an edit history though and the House episode hasn't aired yet, so I'll leave it alone for now. –  Anþony  talk  14:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty uncomfortable with any episode landing at a potential dictdef; the redirect is much more helpful if someone types "insensitive" into the search bar looking for the word, not the episode. Unambiguous titles like "Bargaining, Part One" are a different story. -- nae'blis 23:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The way i see it, we already have plenty of articles for fictional things which have very common names. Like Scared is some obscure 1992 album instead of redirecting to Fear. And Quantum Leap (with a capital "L") redirects to the TV series instead of the physics theory Quantum Leap. IIRC, the TV series article used to be located at Quantum Leap. It's hard where to draw the line of saying we should disambiguate an article so the non-disambiguated name can redirect to a related (but much more common/useful) article. IMO, it's easier to just name articles as simply as possible, but then use the header disambiguation messages to point people the right way. (So the article for "insensitive" will have a line at the very top of the article pointing people to the article for sensitivity). --`/aksha 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Quantum Leap was moved to Quantum Leap (TV series) with the bare minimum of a consensus. I don't think it makes much sense (see Talk:Quantum Leap) but I never bothered to try to move it back.

I don't think an article should be ever disambiguated to avoid clobbering a redirect. A dab link accomplishes the same effect as a redirect and saves us from unnecessary disambiguation. –  Anþony  talk  23:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm of a different opinion, because while we're decidedly not a dictionary, there's a lot of overlap on terms, and we're much much more popular than Wiktionary. Terms of more than one word are easier to justify (like QL, a change I probably wouldn't have made, personally) because of the capitalization rules. Maybe my energy will be better spent putting more prominent links to Wiktionary on the search results screens, than arguing here... -- nae'blis 21:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit to seeing a limit to this as well. If I was new here and typed in a regular word and arrived at an episode of some TV show that I never heard of, I'd find that annoying. I like to minimize shock value. That's why I voted against the Lost (TV series) → Lost move request (to Serge's horror ). It goes against WP:D#Deciding to disambiguate in my opinion. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Here, here! Now if we could just move Friends to Friends. Heh. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

........all done!

just finished moving the last of the Star Trek episode articles. Which means....yep, they're all done! The huge long list of TV series with incorrectly named episode articles has finally all been checked and moved.

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone who helped in checking/moving all those articles in the last two month.

^{(now that i've said it, no doubt someone will turn up and identify another TV series with articles needing to be moved...)}

--`/aksha 12:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Great job, thanks for doing all this. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! Free internets all around. -- Ned Scott 19:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You called it, Yaksha — I noticed that List of The Outer Limits episodes had a bunch of episodes that were disambiguated with (episode) — no series name, just (episode). Which would be fine, I suppose, if The Outer Limits is the only television series that has ever used that title (but it's ambiguous with some other, non-television article); but they were using it for episodes like Awakening (The Outer Limits) (formerly at Awakening (episode)). I went ahead and changed all the pages that had (episode) as their disambiguator to (The Outer Limits). It's not quite our usual problem of unnecessary disambiguation: instead, it was ambiguous disambiguation.

I also recently had to move a few new Battlestar Galactica episode pages to non-disambiguated titles, and put a reminder at Talk:List of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series) episodes#Created pages for episodes 3x12-3x20; a reminder which Matthew Fenton, incidentally, referred to as "bully tactics" (!). But that's just sour grapes. Anyway, I'm glad that the moves are now completed, but since this aspect of the guideline is relatively new, we may have to keep an eye out for misnamed new episode pages. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

One other related issue - there are still some shows that have guidelines that say to always disambiguate, which should be changed. At least, I'm aware of the Star Trek wikiproject. Anyone know of any others? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

good point. Yeah, it would be a good idea to change the guidelines. I know the Star Trek project and the Buffy/Angel project has this, i'll go fix it and leave a note on their project talk pages. --`/aksha 02:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Turned out the Star Trek project was the only one with guidelines needing to be changed. If anyone finds any others, just fix it or tell me about it. --`/aksha 01:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)