Jump to content

Talk:Awkward (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confusion

[edit]

"Jenna ends her relationship with Matty to be with Jake, and both eventually agree to not tell Jake about it."

Best I can figure, this says that Matty and Jenna broke up so she could be with Jake, ad they agreed not to tell Jake about it. I find this confusing, given the stated motivation for the break-up. Some information seems to be missing. 68.108.105.175 (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2011)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No clear consensus to move Mike Cline (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.162.3 (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward. (TV series) → Awkward. – or simply Awkward. Both "Awkward" and "Awkward." redirect here, per WP:PRECISION the "(TV series)" is useless. 189.239.71.250 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't beleive a "." (period) really counts as falling under MOS:TM it certainly isn't going to present any logistical challenges. We often allow "." as the first character for articles, as well as part of titles (W.A.S.P. Keith A. Smith etc.) and I don't see how this is much different. However, ignoring this Awkward should not be a dab page, there might be marginal justification for Awkward (disambiguation) but as far as I can see the primary topic of Awkward is the TV series. The dictionary definition does not have an article (and should not per WP:NOTDIC) and the other possibilities (all 2) don't seem to justify being the WP:Primarytopic or needing to be disambiguated from a dab page. France3470 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the period at the end goes, I think the article should generally use it without (as per MOS:TM), but the first mention as well as the article title should include the period; MOS:TM specifically allows this usage. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TM recommends that the affected title be used only once, in the lead, and does not "specifically allow" it to be used as a title. Powers T 01:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with Powers. My reading of MOS:TM is that the title should not have the full stop and that "Awkward." should be mentioned once in the lead. Also, there is no way that this obscure TV show is the primary topic of "Awkward". Think to yourself: what would most editors expect to see when they type "Awkward" in the search box (and keep in mind that the majority of readers do not know about our policies such as WP:NOTDIC). Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was kind of surprised myself that there wasn't anything else that might fill the space besides an album and this series. But if this isn't the primary topic, then what is? I'd be perfectly fine with keeping this as "Awkward. (TV series)" if we had something better to put under "Awkward"/"Awkward." or somewhere useful for that to redirect to, but no article immediately comes to mind. Knight of Truth (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, we'd have a real article at awkwardness and redirect awkward there. It seems like there ought to be sources out there somewhere. Powers T 14:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Awkwardness is an important and well-documented social and psychological phenomenon, and is also a very common comedic device. There is certainly room for broad coverage of the concept. bd2412 T 15:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I suppose that with a lot of work on Awkwardness, it would be better for Awkward to redirect there and for this article to remain where it is. I change my support to an Oppose. Knight of Truth (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2012) II

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Cúchullain t/c 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward (TV series) → Awkward
Awkward → Awkward (disambiguation)

Extras, Dead Set, Friends, Dumped, Happy Days - no brackets. Also, have a look at the article traffic for Awkwardness (2,030) and the traffic for Awkward (TV series) (82,807). Crystal clear difference. Unreal7 (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment can you use the proper RM format? You nominate quite a few things, and it seems to be that only your nominations are incorrectly formatted, and thus making RMbot malfunction. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get why this is such a big deal. But fine. Unreal7 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only seeing 2 articles listed at the disamb page. With only 2, a disambig page is unnecessary and a hatnote at the top pointing to the other article is all that's needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't associate this familiar word with a TV series that I'm not familiar with. Seriously, who else does? Even a dab page has a link to Wiktionary. --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I agree with you that very few people are likely to associate any word with a TV series that they've never heard of. However, the fact that you have not heard of this show bears no relevance to whether other people have. (I have no opinion on the move or the show myself, but I couldn't resist commenting on the spectacularly poor reasoning that "if I'm not familiar with this topic, obviously nobody else is, either.") Theoldsparkle (talk)
  • Oppose. Disambiguation page has been created, and no indication that this topic is primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello?! Look at the traffic. Unreal7 (talk)
    We need to use some common sense here. Awkward is a common, plain English word and is obviously the primary topic regardless of page stats. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. You're right, the traffic might indicate primacy for the TV series. I missed the stats when I !voted, and I've struck that part of the reason. I'm still opposed, though, on the "long-term significance" criterion, or as I think of it, avoiding surprise on the part of a reader entering "Awkward" and landing at a TV series they are quite possibly unaware of. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think everyone is aware of Extras, Dumped or Neighbours? Unreal7 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The best recent example is Big, a result I also happen to disagree with. As for the others, I think Neighbours should be moved. It seems also that plural somehow helps (e.g. Friend vs Friends). --KarlB (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct regarding plurals. If the nom wants to compare words to Awkward, he should be comparing Extra, Dump and Neighbour. Dead Set and Happy Days are also wrong; it should be Dead, Set, Happy and Day. You can't use combinations of words. The nom has also misread the page view stats, which show that people looking for this series are doing so by coming here, not by looking for it at Awkward. Since Wikipedia is built for readers, not editors, we need to cater for our readers and clearly they see this article as being in the right place. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peanuts as a plural example and Inception as well as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC example, although plurals aren't always accepted as good enough disambiguation. For example Skins (TV series), which I requested drop the TV series but everyone rejected. Unreal7 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Avatar vs Avatar (2009 film). --AussieLegend (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two pages called "Awkward", an unsourced album by Ty, whose own page doesn't even have any sources, and a famous TV show that is still going on. There's also includes a song, that wasn't even released as a single, from an album that doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Come on people, how the hell is this not the primary topic? Unreal7 (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Awkward (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Awkward_(TV_series)&oldid=1234683884"