Talk:Episode 100

Disambiguation page

I propose reverting back to this version, which uses the page for disambiguation purposes, but User:Alex 21 disagrees. Can we get a third opinion? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richhoncho: I see your name often in my watchlist for doing disambiguation work. Do you have an opinion? I should note, the American Horror Story article does not exist yet, but all episodes of the series have Wikipedia articles, so we should expect one will be created very soon. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21: and @Another Believer:. Thanks, I can find enough edit wars of my own, without invitations!!!. I have reverted back to disambiguation page. Bottom line, there are numerous 'Episode 100' and if it points to only one article then I would nominate the redirect for deletion because it would be confusing. A disambiguation page is an improvement, but not much, who is really looking for episode 100s? I have added another episode 100 for example only, there are, literally, 100s of them. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! Once the episode airs and the episode article is created, I'll be sure to move the episode article to this location, and then this page to Episode 100 (disambiguation), given that this episode is the only episode titled "Episode 100" with an article on the entire server, meaning that this episode is, by default, the primary topic. All the best! -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alex, for explanation, but you still haven't proven to me (not saying other editors might not agree with you), why episode 100 of a series I have never heard of, let alone seen should be primary topic over every other 'Episode 100' but as you haven't reverted and are prepared to wait, then I see no reason why we shouldn't leave as a disambig page until your 'Episode 100' proves to be the primary topic. Thankyou for your wisdom. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you personally have heard of it is irrelevant. Can you provide an example of another article titled "Episode 100" that is disambiguated and thus would require the AHS episode article to be disambiguated? If not, then this episode defaults as the primary topic, as the only article titled "Episode 100". -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I have heard or not is irrelevant, as I confirmed when I said other editors might disagree with me. 100 and Episode 100 are not the same thing, but, there are many more 'Episode 100' around. Let's wait and see what the future brings when your Ep100 is available, which was the valuable contribution you made to this discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are these "Episode 100" articles? I've asked you to link them. I'm waiting? -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty interesting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC case. While the American Horror Story episode is technically the only article at that base title, other articles can still challenge it for primacy without having to have that exact title. There are many examples on other disambiguation pages. If our article naming practices were a bit different, then these other episodes could easily live at Episode "100" of ... or similar, and we shouldn't expect users to be intimately familiar with naming policies. I think that in practice it would very reasonable for a user that's looking for an episode simply titled "100" to search for "episode 100", and if that's true then a minority of users arriving here would've been looking for the American Horror Story episode. In my opinion this should stay a DAB page even after the new article is created. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article here, hatnote stating "For episodes titled "100", see 100 (disambiguation)#Film and television." Solved. -- /Alex/₂₁ 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solved, but not well. If we think that most users are not looking for that episode, why would we make the majority do an extra click just to arrive at disambiguation and the minority arrive straight at their target, rather than the other way around? -- Fyrael (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you back up your thoughts that a user that's looking for an episode simply titled "100" to search for "episode 100"? I'm not sure that "we" (who's we?) think that. If I see an episode titled "100", I search "100" in the search box. I don't search for "Episode Camp Redwood" and expect it to be at Episode Camp Redwood. Extending your question, why have primary topics at all, and disambiguate everything so they don't have to take extra clicks? -- /Alex/₂₁ 16:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I cannot back it up, except with reasoning. It is very often the case in primary topic discussions that we have no hard evidence for specific user behaviors (if we did, then we wouldn't bother having a discussion), but that doesn't mean we cannot guess and see if other editors agree. I can easily imagine a user thinking that just searching on a natural number by itself would not produce good results even though that's the title of what they're looking for and deciding to prepend "episode". You are free to disagree with me on that point, but I think it in fact may be very commonplace. To answer your question, we have primary topics so that when it's quite clear that most users want a certain article they don't have to go through disambiguation. I would've thought that was obvious. I'm disputing whether most users who type "episode 100" are looking for this one episode. That's what we're discussing here. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, we do have primary topics, especially when the episode is the only article titled as such; for example, Carnival Row isn't titled Carnival Row (TV series), because it is the only work titled "Carnival Row" with an article. Same applies here: this is the only work titled "Episode 100" with an article. Note how there is only one entry on this disambiguation page. That automatically means that no disambiguation is required. If it continues to be such once the episode has aired and the episode needs an article, then it can be created here while employing the use of hatnotes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fyrael, an editor placing one link does not form a binding consensus on your end and it does not allow you to force your edits. WP:BRD applies to all edits. A bold edit was made, it was reverted, now reply to this discussion and take part on collaborative editing. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So childish. There's only one entry because you deleted the others, as you're well aware. As I've said earlier, but you clearly ignored, there are many examples of topics that are not titled exactly the same as the disambiguated title still challenging for primacy. Amazon jumps immediately to mind. If we were using your logic, the other three big contenders would be thrown out and the company would be primary without question, but that's not how primacy works here. The river, rainforest, and tribe all contend because they could reasonably be called "Amazon", and I'm making the same argument for these other episodes. I fully acknowledge that this case is more of a stretch than those, but I think it's still within the bounds. And I also think that this is a close call. I went back and forth a bit before landing slightly on the side of disambiguation. I'd be very interested to hear other opinions and I won't be terribly disappointed if it goes against me. That said, I'll discontinue this non-productive discussion until someone else pipes up. This was linked in the DAB project talk, so hopefully a couple others will follow it as I did.

I will, however, join you in the edit war over those other entries until an admin stops us because 1) I think they're useful for the discussion here, 2) at least one other editor believes episodes titled "100" belong, as opposed to your sole opinion, and 3) while I generally try my best to respect BRD, I don't really think it applies well to a 10-day-old page. Although without reasons 1 and 2, I would in fact relent while discussion took place. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do try to remain civil in a discussion, as hard for you as it may be. Can you tell me how many entries included are titled "Episode 100"? The answer is one. So, there was only ever one entry. This is not the page for 100 (disambiguation) or Episodes titled 100.

I will be the more civil editor and cease the edit war, in the face that you are willing to and actually enjoying an edit war, but I do congratulate you, as you have now violated 3RR and a report against you to the administrators would be valid and beneficial. I see now that you have absolutely no willingness to discuss the issue in a civil, contributing and collaborative manner, and are clearly WP:NOTHERE, so there's no point in wasting our time. All the best! -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First: Whew! I skimmed that wall of text, but mostly what I glean from it is People Have Opinions. Forgive me if my own argument fails to cite or respond to something above, but, as I said, Whew!

Clearly some form of disambiguation is needed. The question is whether Episode 100 (American Horror Story) is the primary usage of "Episode 100", in which case it might make sense to put the disambiguation page at Episode 100 (disambiguation) or the like.

In my opinion, though, there is no primary use here. Each of the television programs on the current DAB page is sufficiently well-known that people may be looking for any one of these episodes. Regardless of official titles, it might be reasonable to call any of these things "episode 100". I just don't see sufficient reason to say that any one of them is clearly the primary use. Cnilep (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Episode 100 (American Horror Story) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]