Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:NCTV)
WikiProject
Television
Project main page
Project discussion
Project assessment talk
Television portal talk
Descendant WikiProjects and task forces
Showcase
Project organization
Article alerts
Deletion sorting
Popular pages
New articles
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Project templates talk
Television stubs
Guidelines
Project manual of style talk
Project notability guidelines talk
TV article naming convention talk
Broadcasting article naming convention talk
Related WikiProjects
Actors and Filmmakers
Albums
Animation
Anime and manga
Comics
Film
Literature
Media franchises
Radio
Screenwriters
Westerns
view · edit · changes

Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles

[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus in favor of option 2.
Some editors raised concerns that this RFC is invalid because of a weak consensus on a previous one: I do not believe such an argument holds in this case. To my knowledge, the previous close has not been disputed and subsequently reverted, nor were a significant number of participants in this RFC raising such a concern. Thus, it is understood that the community, either explicitly or implicitly, agree with the closure of the aforementioned thread.— ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 22:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:

Concerns were raised below about my close and a number of editors expressed a wish for me to expand further upon it. I will say that I do not believe in explicitly saying "strong consensus" over just "consensus": if the result is the same such an adjective is redundant. I believe that each discussion merits a different bar upon which one must determine its consensus and a closer should specify only if that bar is met (alongside any explanation required). Due to the large number of articles this change would affect just a weak or simple consensus in favor of option 2 would not satisfy the bar needed to close in its favor. I found there was strong consensus in favor of option 2 and that the consensus met what I considered was the bar to find in its favor. Thus, "strong consensus" would be equal to saying "consensus".
I will now describe the various issues that were explicitly raised with my closure before detailing the PAGs through which I determined this consensus. Firstly, I note that while Polling is not a substitute for discussion, when equally reasonable views of applicable policy contradict each other a closer must look to which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. Secondly, it is not necessary for editors to find the status quo violates any PAGs or is inherently bad for them to change it if they believe the change will result in a better guideline. Thirdly, as I mention above, I do not see enough merit in the claim that the RFC below is invalid. Comments that participants were misled about the previous discussion's consensus, that said discussion not being an RFC disqualifies this result, or the previous discussion was itself invalid are incorrect based on my reading of both discussions. I find that the partipants in this RFC believe both that the previous discussion's close is appropriate, that this RFC is a natural consequence of that discussion, and that this RFC is well-formed.
The discussion essentially broke down to supporters of option 1 (use of comma), option 2 (use of space), and preserving the status quo. A negligible proportion of participants supported options 3 and 4 as their primary choice. I thus proceeded first to determine whether there was consensus in favor of options 1 or 2 or in favor of the status quo, as consensus in favor of the status quo here would override consensus in favor of a change in the previous discussion.
Editors in favor of the status quo raised the point that parentheses are used for disambiguation and thus applicable to the article titles of television series. However, disambiguations are meant for when a potential article title is ambiguous. Editors against the status quo successfully argued that television series are discrete and sufficiently differentiated topics so as to not be ambiguous. Thus, I discounted the argument based on disambiguation. Editors in favor of the status quo also claimed those against were voting based on WP:ILIKEIT. I will remind editors that said essay refers to the relationship between subjective opinion and the inclusion of content on the wiki based on WP:Verifiability not to subjective voting on the style of Wikipedia. Not only this, but I did not find that arguments against the status quo were based mostly or partially on subjective preference. Furthermore, arguments that only mention an option being liked/disliked/preferred were not discarded just because: I discarded them iff I could not see a parallel to our criteria for article titles which includes "Naturalness". Finally, editors in favor of the status quo raised issues with the options presented. Editors against the status quo saw them as reasons why one option should be chosen over another, not as issues that prevented them from choosing any of them. Thus, this argument was not strong enough to determine a consensus in favor of the status quo.
A number of arguments were presented in favor of option 1. These included having some punctuation being necessary for clarity purposes and readability. Similarly, a number of arguments were presented in favor of option 2. These included similar concerns for clarity, the use of italics to distinguish titles of television shows (see MOS:NAT), and a majority sources using no punctuation. Thus, option 1 supporters presented very similar, if weaker, arguments compared to option 2 supporters. This combined with the fact that option 2 supporters outnumbered option 1 supporters by over three times, I found strong consensus in favor of option 2.

Editors that feel so inclined are welcome to contest this close by appealing at WP:AN.

— ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 19:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The status quo results in article title examples like these: The Simpsons (season 8) and Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 10) and Dancing with the Stars (South Korean season 3).

There is a rough consensus (see the RfC a few thread above this one) to change away from this, but not yet a consensus on what to replace it with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The options are:

Options
No. Description Example A Example B Example C
1 Comma after series name The Simpsons, season 8 Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series), season 10 Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series), season 3
2 Space after series name The Simpsons season 8 Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) season 10 Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series) season 3
3 Colon after series name The Simpsons: season 8 Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series): season 10 Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series): season 3
4 Dash after series name The Simpsons – season 8 Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) – season 10 Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series) – season 3

I suppose another option could be added, but I don't recall any others (dashes? maybe?) from the earlier discussion round. PS: This RfC was workshopped a bit in user-talk, with participants from the first RfC and its closer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: I have "advertised" this to various relevant project pages, including WP:VPPOL, to be sure we get solid and wide input.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PPPS: Added the dash option, since people (perhaps surprisingly) were !voting for it despite it being not listed. But it was only added just now, so early commenters have mostly not considered it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • 1 - as it is the most visually pleasing. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 > 3 > 4 > 2. Some kind of punctuation that separates the series title (and any disambiguation it has) from the season designator is needed, especially if in British cases we might be using things like "series 2" instead of "season 2".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Followup after additional research: A) There's been some debate about whether this is a form of disambiguation or a form of split long list, and the general conclusion is that it's the latter - "Soap (season 2)", in the original format, is not something named Soap that is an example of a season 2, but is part of a series of lists of episodes divided by season. Therefore, WP:Naming conventions (lists) applies, and it requires punctuation of one kind or another between main subject and sub-list identifier: Deprecated as ambiguous, hard to read ...: "List of foos A–K". The closer will thus need to weight more dubiously the arguments for option 2 (no punctuation) since they are against an established and applicable guideline but are based on aesthetic/simplicity preferences not any WP:IAR need to ignore a rule to objectively improve the encyclopedia.

    B) Arguments for option 2 are also not accounting for accessibilty concerns: screen readers ignore italics, while at least some of them either announce uncommon punctuation like dashes and colons or simply pause at them as they do with commas, both behaviors being sufficiently helpful to the blind (a few will ignore them entirely, though this is generally considered a bug, and is likely to improve in the future). Thus, some form of punctuation helps many and hurts none.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thus, some form of punctuation helps many and hurts none. So, are you saying you would prefer the status quo over Option 2? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would have to think about it more. Both formats are distinctly unhelpful but in unrelated ways, and it would come down to personally, subjectively weighing which is slightly less "reader-hateful" than the other. I might lean a hair toward status quo on that point, but I lean away from it in not wanting to join the dubious bandwagon of claiming there was no consensus ("rough" or otherwise) reached to deprecate that option in the previous round. And Graham87's observation below (even if personal/anecdotal) tends to discount the accessibility factor (B) as being particularly dispositive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a screen reader user who has it set to say *fewer* punctuation marks than it would by default, so I don't mind what happens here. Either way it should usually be obvious from context. Graham87 (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 > 3 > 1 > status quo per my comment in the last RfC. Italics separate the title from the season designator (and parentheticals from any disambiguation). — Bilorv (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 > 1 > 3 Punctuation is stylistically and grammatically unnecessary. I'm not sure how we could determine which is used more in RSes, but my guess is that usage likely comes down to style guides. To respond to points made about disambiguation in the previous discussion: season X is not a disambiguator for TV Series because there is nothing ambiguous about TV series season X. Rather, TV Series season X is a fork of TV Series. If there is consensus for punctuation, I prefer a comma over a colon because it looks cleaner. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 > 1 > 3 per Voorts. I proposed comma disambiguation in the previous discussion that led to this RfC, and on the arguments there I am persuaded that no punctuation is equally correct, given that the "thing" being described in the article is the season as an instance in itself, rather than the season as an instance of another thing. I think this is particularly clear in the cases with the Example B and C parenthetical disambiguators incorporated into the title. BD2412 T 00:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 – The more I think about my originally half-sarcastic alternative, the more I find myself pulled towards it, but I don't think it's worth complicating the argument further. If this is going to happen, commas seem reasonable to me; the other options just feel a bit awkward (no punctuation could be confusing when italics are not present, i.e., in search results, and colons resemble subpages too much to me). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 > 1 > 3. In my opinion, 1 and especially 3 seem contrived and incongruent with common English language usage. I don't see a strong need to make the word "season" any more distinct than it would be in any other compound phrase, but if there is, italics seem sufficient. ― novov (t c) 04:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 > 2 > 3. (Found this discussion through VPP.) Of these three formats, the colon is the only one I actively dislike; it feels awkward and not aligned with how people handle this type of clarification in day-to-day usage (i.e., as opposed to when establishing official titles/subtitles). In my opinion, the comma slightly beats the no-punctuation format because I think it's more clear about where the show title ends. However, it's a relatively marginal improvement in clarity, so I wouldn't be unhappy with Option 2 either. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the status quo The only argument that has been raised in favor of changing the current method is that it looks nicer/prettier/cleaner, a subjective non-policy-based IDONTLIKEIT argument that is not a good reason to rename thousands of articles and update thousands of incoming links. The current method is clean enough; clearly separates the show title from the season number; is just as "uncommonly used in sources" as the other punctuation proposed, although that is irrelevant as Wikipedia does not follow other publications' style guides; does not cause confusion as to whether the parentheses are part of the title, since they are rarely found in show titles, unlike colons and commas; and has no contradiction with WP:AT, WP:NCDAB, or other naming conventions. The other !voters are reminded that they are not limited to the three options presented and can !vote "do nothing". InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already a determination of consensus to move away from the status quo. Do you have a preference among the options presented in this discussion? BD2412 T 13:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Do nothing" is always an option in an RfC (or similar processes) — and "rough consensus" is a weak rationale to make such a major change. As I noted, there still has yet to be an argument put forth for moving away from parentheses aside from subjective opinions about which looks better. But I will say that it should absolutely not be #3, dashes, or any other unconventional punctuation, since that will almost certainlt cause confusion with show names with colons or dashes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 > 3 > dashes. I'd like to lean toward the formatting that the majority/plurality of sources use if possible, so I conducted a bunch of searches for seasons of TV shows in various genres. My super scientific results shows no punctuation being favored, followed by colons and dashes (seemed roughly equal), then parentheses. Surprisingly, I could not find instances of using commas (even when using commas to search). I disregarded instances of "season x of Show". Because it came up, I do explicitly oppose the status quo because it is confused for and interferes with actual disambiguation (no, "season 1" is not disambiguation so don't call option 1 "comma disambiguation"). Therefore, it creates false positives at maintenance categories like this one. -- Tavix (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2, dash, 3, 1. I've made my comments at the previous RfC and other comments above preferring 2 first have already covered my position. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 and only 2 – because otherwise you'll have the very non-grammatical "For All Mankind, season 2 sees the characters..." and then we'll be debating whether we have to set off the "season X" tag in commas like: "For All Mankind, season 2, sees the characters..." I mean yes we could reword as "The second season of For All Mankind sees the characters..." but that won't be done consistently, especially in the lead where people LOVE to have the exact article title bolded appearing... (similar terrible mangling of English happens with the colon) so yes, if we are doing away with the parenthetical disambiguation, let's make things as "natural" (as in, unadorned) as possible so that the article title can be easily used in-text without contortions. Any other choice is either as "bad" as parenthetical disambiguation or worse. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 > 2 three is just a bad idea as it indicates a subtitle. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 and only 2, since that's how most reliable sources refer to shows with multiple seasons. Oppose Option 3, since the colon makes it seem like "season" is a part of the show's official title/name, which it is not (and renaming The Challenge: All Stars (season 3) to The Challenge: All Stars: season 3 looks ridiculous). Also support keeping the status quo. Some1 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. Simpler is better. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 per Joeyconnick. —El Millo (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak support for only 2, though partially inclined to keeping the status quo per InfiniteNexus and the fact that the closing note of the previous RfC stated There appears to be a rough consensus, not exactly a rousing indication of strong support for such a change. But if a change happens, which again I'm not fully sure I support at this time, it should only be 2. There should be no punctation to indicate a season in the article's title. Joeyconnick laid out a good explanation above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 or 3 - I will still say that moving away from the status quo (parens only) is best, but given that option seems to be off the table from the prior RFC, using either spaces or colons would match how other multipart works are named on WP and in the real world (eg Dune: Part Two or Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One). I feel the space version is more natural, but I also can see the colon version. Option 1 seems to be more original research in how seasons are named. --Masem (t) 00:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to point out that Dune: Part Two and Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One are the official titles of the movies; the use of the colons there aren't comparable to TV seasons. Some1 (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we're talking about creating titles that don't normally exist in reliable sources for these TV series, so we're doing some type of original research (necessary to build the encyclopedia so acceptable) and in that frame it is best to stick to how other works indicate multipart volumes and use a format that is comparable as to minimize this amount of minimal research. This is why the comma form is weird as that's something make work in a grammatical fashion, but not at all common in other media forms. Masem (t) 01:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem: It's not as though sources never refer to shows by their season in a comparable way. E.g., "MCU Theory Explains Why Loki Was Strong Enough To Save The Multiverse In The Loki Season 2 Finale", stating "Loki's ability to save the entire multiverse in Loki season 2 was one of the biggest and most satisfying revelations of the Multiverse Saga"; "Blue Bloods Season 9 Streaming: Watch & Stream Online via Hulu & Paramount Plus", stating: "Curious about where to watch Blue Bloods Season 9 online?"; "'The Voice' Season 20 Results: Who Won the Knockout Rounds and Made the Live Shows?", stating: "The Voice season 20 is headed for the live shows!"); "Where Was Young Sheldon's Paige In The Big Bang Theory?", stating: "there's no guarantee that the shortened Young Sheldon season 7 will bring her back" and "The Big Bang Theory season 12 found a way to bring in Tam, Sheldon's first friend". BD2412 T 03:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I can support 2, because that's the effective format used in RS writing. 2 doesn't create an option that is not used routinely in RSes (as it would be for option 1 using the comma). Masem (t) 05:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "creating titles that don't normally exist in reliable sources for these TV series" would be adding random punctuation (commas, colons, dashes, etc.) in the titles. 2 (using the space) is what reliable sources most commonly use for the TV series with multiple seasons. Some1 (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 per above, but I would change the disambiguation from "Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series) season 3" to "Dancing with the Stars season 3 (South Korean TV series)".   Tentinator   02:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. So for British shows the title is going to be Survivor (British TV series) series 3? This looks a little crazy... so I am in favour of a comma. Heartfox (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My ranked-choice would be status quo, 1, 2, 3. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 as adding a comma or colon would be Wikipedia adding punctuation that is not consistently used by sources. Having the series name in italics and the "season X" unitalicised is clear enough a distinction without us needing to manufacture one. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference would be 2 or status quo rather than 1 or 3. S5A-0043Talk 14:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The arguments for 2 have convinced me, so 2 is now my preference, but 1 still seems like a fine alternative as the italics help differentiate. But 2 is the seeming consensus, and that option is definitely better than the status quo. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 and only 2. Only one reflecting real world use. Some observations:
    • User:RunningTiger123 has concerns for "when italics are not present, i.e., in search results. Ideal world, italics would be present in search results. In our less than ideal world, lots of things look wonky in search results, but maybe not so much as to tip scales as to how things in more prominent spaces ought look.
    • User:InfiniteNexus has concerns for "series that already have that punctuation" — not well solved by instead adding two additional punctuation elements (a ( and a )). Should we have instead "Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) (season 10)"? Guessing "Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series season 10)" to avoid adding a dreaded comma. But that makes the part within parentheses all the more confusing. Heaven forbid somebody should make articles on the individual seasons of Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) (2000 TV series).
    • User:Heartfox and User:Tentinator kind of cancel each other out. Heartfox is concerned that "Survivor (British TV series) series 3" looks "a little crazy", but Tentinator is the most correct: if the season is the reason and the summum bonum of the page, then all of these ought to be titled as "Hawaii Five-0 season 10 (2010 TV series)", "Dancing with the Stars season 3 (South Korean TV series)", and such. And here User:OlifanofmrTennant is spot on as well. Vast majority of shows have no such problem. Start with what looks best -- and reflects real world use -- for the vast majority. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick comment about my concern: what would be a "more prominent" space than search results? I agree it's not necessarily enough to swing the decision on its own, but I also don't think search results should be entirely ignored when a significant portion of traffic comes via search (either the internal Wikipedia search or external search engines). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 is the most elegant solution. The extra punctuation isn't necessary to express the idea; all three examples in the "2" row are perfectly comprehensible. Toughpigs (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 I thought I would like 1, but after reading the discussion, 2 is the only option that works in all situations. 3 makes it seem that the season is part of the official name. --Enos733 (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything other than option 2, which has no sensible separation between title and season (or series, for British readers) MapReader (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 (in line with sports articles like 2023 French Open – Women's singles, Gymnastics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's artistic individual all-around, etc.) > 1 > 3 > 2 (somewhat awkward), anything but completely inconsistent status quo. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed - We use parentheses for disambiguation on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles. (Look at the top of this page, it's even done here.) This WP:LOCALCON probably shouldn't change that. And in this case, it is the clearest and reduces confusion and ambiguity. Which, incidentally, is the title of the relevant guideline, as noted. If the closer doesn't closer per existing guidelines, and instead closes as some sort of no consensus for the status quo, then some sort of punctuation (4>3>1). Oppose merely having a space, due to lack of clarity. - jc37 04:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See discussion below about whether (and why probably not) this constitutes disambiguation. And the "(television)" in this page's name isn't disambiguation at all, it's topic identification that is coincidentally using a parenthetical form (topical SNGs also do this, while MoS topical pages do not; we should probably normalize to the "/" style used by the MoS pages so it's clearer they are not disambiguations).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 - I think others have made convincing arguments that for WP:CONCISE and clarity, we should not insert extraneous punctuation. -- Netoholic @ 14:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 > 3 > 1. I dislike dashes in titles as there seems to be perpetual churn around the type of dash which is confusing for those not steeped in typographical arcana. Parentheses is just wrong. older ≠ wiser 15:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 Supporting all reasonings provided previously, but also based on existing episode articles examples, such as "Glorious Purpose" (Loki season 1), "Episode 1" (Humans series 1) and "Episode 1" (Fleabag series 2); each of these are episode titles "Glorious Purpose" and "Episode 1" that belong to Loki season 1, Humans series 1 and Fleabag series 2 respectively – this is disambiguation used properly. (List of Skins episodes is another article that uses this example a multitude of times.) -- Alex_21 TALK 22:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, existing episode-article examples are not of any relevance, since this is entirely about changing from that existing format (a consensus to make that change already being established) to another format (the consensus for which exactly is what this RfC will establish).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It shows there's already a clearly set standard for what we're wanting to move towards. Whatever the result of this RFC, those episode articles have no reason to change, as this RFC only concerns the naming of the season articles. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can accept that my usage may not be the same as yours (which I guess is what's being discussed here lol). But "disambiguation" merely means to remove ambiguity, to clarify that which may be otherwise ambiguous. So for example, by adding that parenthetical above, it makes clear that this page of naming conventions is about television, rather than all the other naming convention pages. It removes ambiguity, through clarification.
    The problem, to me at least, is whether removfing the parenthetical standard will increase ambiguity. And if it's merely a space, I think it can. Especially if this starts getting used for other sub-topics. And a comma, colon, or dash, have their own issues.
    I've been wondering if prehaps single brackets [season 12], might be a solution, if the concern is redundant parentheticals. But I'm not sure that that's that's where this train (or potential trainwreck) is wanted to be headed. - jc37 15:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How will the parenthetical standard [...] increase ambiguity? If you see an article titled Loki season 1, are there any other articles concerning Loki season 1 that the article would be ambiguous to? How would the title of that article be ambiguous? -- Alex_21 TALK 23:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there are some notable shows (with multiple seasons) that have counterparts in other countries (or just other unrelated shows with the same name). We seem to be angling for "Show Title (disambiguator) • season #", where "•" is either a space alone or some form of punctuation (dash, colon, comma, spaced as appropriate for that puncutation mark). Jc37: I get what you mean by "disambiguation" in the looser sense now. I agree with "if it's merely a space, I think it can [increase ambiguity]"; this would even apply to the internal pages that are using parentheses (or sometimes now slashes instead) as quasi-disambiguatory punctuation; it would not be good for us to have "Wikipedia:Naming conventions television" or "Wikipedia:Manual of Style television" (that said, the "/" style is also effectively banned by WP:LONGLIST in mainspace).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To my eye it's a weak to no consensus in the RFC above so I'd argue this rfc is jumping the gun in building a consensus around a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. However, if pushed to build a consensus in this discussion, lean to option 1 but suggest 2 is out in front and I can live with it until the next time. Hiding T 12:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This RfC is not dependent on the previous discussion, though. It could have been initiated more or less as is even if no prior discussion had occurred. BD2412 T 04:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're ducking down a side alley that's not productive but forgive me, you're being disingenuous. It is framed as being dependent on the previous discussion and looks to build on a rough consensus believed to be established in that prior discussion and takes place in a world where that prior discussion happened. If it had been initiated in a situation where no prior discussion had occurred we would be having a different discussion. The knowledge of the previous discussion informs this debate, and can't be disregarded. You yourself have referred to the previous discussion and believed consensus contained within, so it must be of importance. A number of the opposers have engaged and offered opinions and referred to the prior debate. The only person to oppose above and not comment is User:Necrothesp as far as I can see, so there is consensus building being engaged here. I have made my comment in a consensus building effort but believe it's important and instructive to show how we build that consensus. I can't know who will read these words, but I want to show them what I think and also why I think it, and also what has happened. It's a good debating technique to pretend something hasn't happened, but that doesn't change the fact that it did happen. But like I say, side-alley, I don't see this line worth the time if I'm honest. Far better to agree the previous debate happened, surely? A good closer will evaluate my comment and understand it in terms of building a consensus. Hiding T 07:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forgive my cynicism, but comments merely denigrating the previous close appear to imply that the clear and overwhelming majority of participants in this discussion who support a change from the status quo should be ignored by the closer of this discussion, in favor of some kind of supervote. No one here has been fooled into voting for the change proposed. BD2412 T 14:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Cynicism is fine, probably mirrors mine and I don't think we're far apart in where we're coming from, which is opposite sides attempting to find a middle. Like I say, four of the previous participants have contributed here so the consensus above has evolved. It's working how it's supposed to work, by continuing discussion. Hiding T 11:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Throwing shade on the previous discussion, everyone who participated in it (other than who you agree with), and the closer too, is not constructive but determinental to the good-faith discussion process you say you are in support of. Just knock it off, please.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: my irritation is not so much towards you as towards various other frankly disrespectful comments made in this discussion, hinting that the closer should treat highly experienced editors like a bunch of rubes to be disregarded. It is an exercise in well-poisoning. BD2412 T 00:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I'm not intending to well-poison, I hope that's clear. To my eye the consensus seems to be forming around 2, and as I say, I hate it but can live with it in terms of a consensus position, and if that's where consensus lands, so be it and I can see it. If others in the debate can indicate what they can live with, that will help. It's an MOS issue at the end of the day, it's something we have to somehow approach somewhat consensually, I've been through enough MOS debates to come to understand we need some sort of style. Hiding T 11:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While in this case I do support moving away from the status quo, I agree with the procedural objections above that it is invalid to claim that there is consensus to move away from the status quo. For example, there is often consensus that Sarah Jane Brown is a bad title (i.e. a supermajority prefer something other than that as their first choice), but unless an alternative title gains more popularity than the status quo, the article should remain at Sarah Jane Brown; it is disingenuous to eliminate the status quo as a viable option and force a choice between the remaining options. That said, on the substance I do agree that the status quo is an improper use of parenthetical disambiguation, so my ranking is 3 > 4 > 1 > 2 > status quo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any editor could have raised such objections with the closer of the previous discussion, or through an appeal of that close. Nevertheless, it has been clear since early on in this discussion that the few editors who support the status quo have the ability to express that. If you'd like, I can poll all of the editors who have supported a change from the status quo to insure that their position to this effect is not dictated by the outcome of the previous discussion. That would eliminate any validity concerns. BD2412 T 20:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So far I have only seen a few people (e.g. Favre1fan93, S5A-0043T) rank the status quo anywhere but the very top or very bottom, so this is mostly a moot point; this approach is most problematic when a substantial amount of people rank the status quo in the middle. But my general point stands: We shouldn't hold RfCs in two stages, one to determine if the status quo should change and other to choose an alternative. This is why the Brexit vote was poorly designed: most likely no individual plan (no deal, customs union, Norway-style, Canada-style, etc.) would have defeated remain, but they combined to give the edge to leave without a clear plan in mind.
    For a more Wikipedia-centric example, let's say that a title is currently a disambiguation page, e.g. New York. Suppose that 20% agree with the status quo, while 80% want change. Of that 80%, 40% want New York (state) to be the primary topic and 40% want New York City to be the primary topic. Obviously, the status quo should remain even though it has only 20% support! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    New York actually used to be the title of the article on the state, and I was very heavily involved in the discussion to disambiguate that title, and to fix the 80,000 links that required disambiguation following that move. With respect to the 20/40/40 situation, see WP:BARTENDER, regarding such situations: "where there is substantial support for moving the hypothetical "Bob Smith" away from its current title, but disagreement as to whether the best target to which it could be moved is "Bob Thomas Smith" or "Bob Smith (podiatrist)" or "Bob Smith (born 1962)". In such a case, the page should be moved, and the closing administrator will just have to use his or her best judgement as to which possible target title best meets the policies and goals of the encyclopedia, and the needs of readers". The absence of consensus for a specific outcome, of course, is not an issue in this discussion. However, another thing that I learned from the process of disambiguating New York is this: a few months after these titles are moved, you will forget that they ever were where they were before. BD2412 T 18:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm aware of that history as well; if New York is currently the state, then a consensus to move away from the state is a consensus to choose either disambiguation or the city, since the two are directionally the same. However, if New York is currently a disambiguation page, WP:BARTENDER does not apply unless a substantial amount of participants believe that having a disambiguation page is harmful and would rather readers see some page, even if it isn't their preferred page. (There were indeed some !voters who said exactly that, but they were few in number; the vast majority of state supporters preferred disambiguation over the city, and the vast majority of city supporters preferred disambiguation over the state.) At the very least, if making a BARTENDER choice to move from A (the status quo) to B, there should be majority support for B over A if forced to choose in a two-way poll. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2>1>3>4>Status Quo, I think the lack of punctuation is the most ideal, as it seems the most natural way of titling season articles, here, but I prefer any of the options over the status quo. To me, the status quo seems to be using the parentheses as a work around to the lack of mainspace subpages. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 > 3 > 4 > 2, per SMcCandlish this is a common sense way to display these titles in a way that's easier to read. Nemov (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status Quo > hybrid of 1 and 2 > 2. The "hybrid" option I prefer if a change is deemed desirable (and I'm not convinced it is) would be to use option 2 where there are parentheses and option 1 where there aren't (i.e. avoid "),"). Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 > 1 > status quo > 3 > 4. Strongly dislike the dash. JM (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
There isn't a good example for dashes, but if a show like Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story had season articles, there would be similar issues. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow-up

[edit]

@Ixtal: You wrote that there is "consensus" for option 2, but you didn't explain why or how. What is the reason for changing a longstanding naming convention and mass-moving hundreds of articles? Given the size and magnitude of the proposal, this must be a strong consensus — not just a rough one — and a good reason to proceed, not simply for aesthetic tastes. As you should know, consensus is not determined by the number of raw votes but by the strength of the arguments presented; the strongest arguments are those grounded in policy and guidelines, while the weakest are those based upon the subjective opinions and preferences of editors.

I also disagree with your assessment regarding the validity of this RfC, which was based on a presumed consensus; the word "rough" was not added to the opening statement until late into the RfC, so over half of the initial !votes were likely misled by the false claim that there was already a consensus to move away from the current naming convention. Even the previous discussion, which was not an RfC, was built on the faulty premise of parentheses only being permissible for disambiguation, a claim not supported by any policy. There is no evidence the current naming convention violates any other PAGs, hinders readability, breaks accessibility, or otherwise produces a detrimental effect to readers. The fact that the previous close was not formally contested is irrelevant and does not imply community endorsement; silence is the weakest form of consensus.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone was tricked in this RfC; people still !voted to maintain the status quo. That said, I agree this close is lacking, and I recommend that @Ixtal either provide an actual explanation of why there's consensus for option 2 or self-revert and allow another closer to step up. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone was tricked in this RfC The status quo was not even mentioned as an option in the opening statement, which many RfC !voters often only read. The fact that many users who "ranked" their preferences did not bother to include the status quo (not even as the last option) is telling, and in my opinion the RfC initiators should not have asserted that it had already been decided to move away from the status quo. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
!Voters are always within their rights to !vote for the status quo, whether it's included or not. We don't need to hold everybody's hands, the status quo remains the default suggestion for every RFC. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worst case scenario, we can poll all the voters and ask whether they understood that could always state a preference for the status quo. BD2412 T 18:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, yes, but the problem is that the RfC statement made a point of saying "There is a consensus [...] to change away from this, but not yet a consensus on what to replace it with." It left out the fact that (1) it was a rough consensus, and (2) no policy-based rationale was provided by those who supported a change. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
InfiniteNexus, I did not say there was "rough" consensus. I personally do not believe in using the wording "strong consensus" when closing discussions except in situations where it is behaviorally required (such as contentious topic areas where editors will disregard just saying "consensus"), even when strong consensus is present (as was, in my eyes, the case in this RfC).
InfiniteNexus and voorts, I will expand on my closure tomorrow if that's okay. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 01:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do. This RfC is in effect a mass RM to move hundreds of pages, so there must be some rationale to move that is not "because some editors thought it would look nicer". That is a classic WP:IJUSTLIKEIT argument that does not hold water. As with any large-scale change, a mass move would cause major disruption to the encyclopedia and must be done on firm, policy-based ground. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is done, please don't create a mixed style version. If someone wants to open a review, please do so as pages are starting to move (Legends of Tomorrow season 4) which causes errors as the code isn't set up to support two completely different styles.
Related to the above RfC change, how would titles Big Brother 2 (American season) be treated in the style? Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: Please self-revert all of your recent article moves. As seen above, the RFC closure is still being discussed, nor have there been any updates to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) yet. Your edits have been far too hasty and are causing errors; there are far more technical parts to update within commonly-used templates before articles begin to be moved. Any such moves should also be mass-made via a bot, not individually by any number of editors. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said — disruption. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: Big Brother 2 (American season) already seems to deviate from the standard. Why is it not presently at Big Brother (American season 2)? BD2412 T 18:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be because Talk:Big Brother 1 (American season)#Requested move 22 December 2018. In that RM it was shown that the name of the season is actually "Big Brother 2". Gonnym (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I don't think it would change at all. The specific name of the season is the specific name of the season. BD2412 T 19:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. The title of the season is Big Brother 2, and it is disambiguated properly as an "American season" (vs a Dutch season, Australian season, etc.) This is a situation of correct disambiguation, whereas the standard "(season #)" was not correct disambiguation. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another question, what is to be done with titles like Doctor Who (2022 specials). Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty simple Doctor Who 2022 specials Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do people really think this looks good in terms of readability and clarity? I am still unable to see how it would benefit readers to remove the clear separator between a show's title and the disambiguation/subtopic indicator. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously people do, otherwise media outlets would not widely use this format. Perhaps it is time for you to start asking yourself what you are missing that everyone else is seeing. BD2412 T 00:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Media outlets" use it in prose; we're talking about Wikipedia article titles here. Obviously, we wouldn't say XXX (season 2) premiered on ... (I believe the wording we generally use is "the second season of XXX"), and that wouldn't change even if the articles were moved. There aren't very many sites that have "article titles" similar to ours, but the ones that do have no clear standard: Rotten Tomatoes uses "Season # – XXX" (and a colon in the tab header); IMDb has no clear style; Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have articles on individual seasons; Metacritic just displays the season number (and a space in the tab header); Fandom wikis alternate between colons, parentheses, vertical bars, and spaces. There isn't a "right" way to do this, and those who support a change did not provide a rationale that doesn't boil down to WP:IJUSTLIKEIT — does the current approach breach policy? Does it make it harder on readers? Are there accessibility problems? Does it violate our MoS or AT? Is it confusing to readers? If the answer to these questions is "no, but some editors think it looks visually superior", then that does not merit a move of 1,000+ articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Media outlets" also use it in article titles. In a few months you'll forget they were ever in parentheses at all. BD2412 T 22:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or Doctor Who specials (2022), as they are indeed concerning the Doctor Who specials, and we disambiguate accordingly whether they're the 2008–2010, 2013, 2022 or 2023 specials. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixtal: Are you still going to expand on your rationale today? If not, I think undoing the close and allowing another editor to handle it would be best at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping, voorts. Apologies for the delay. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 19:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the logic is sound and the logistics of the change should be discussed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping voorts and InfiniteNexus that the expanded close rationale is now present. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 21:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. A very good close, in my opinion. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically a light novel. I mean that as a compliment. BD2412 T 04:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 10:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow for enough time to update guidelines, templates and modules to adjust for the new style and then let a bot move all pages at once. Moving pages already will cause needless issues. There is no rush to move these today. Gonnym (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ixtal, thank you for elaborating, this was the sort of explanation that should have been given in the initial close. Regarding your point on ILIKEIT, the essay being referred to is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT; ILIKEIT is sometimes used as a shorthand. I will now ping the other editors who raised concerns with the validity of this RfC for their thoughts: @Jc37, Hiding, and King of Hearts. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical updates

[edit]

The following is a beginning list of all update that will need to follow:

Extended content
See #Technical updates 2. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  1.  Done Update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)
  2.  Done Create a list of all articles where the title matches the format "%((season|series) [0-9]+%)" via an approved bot, including the mainspace and draftspace. The three primary formatting changes are:
    • The Simpsons (season 8) ➜ The Simpsons season 8
    • Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 10) ➜ Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) season 10
    • Dancing with the Stars (South Korean season 3) ➜ Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series) season 3
    • Full list of moves listed at User:Alex 21/sandbox/NCTV
  3.  Done Create another list of all articles that include {{Infobox television season}} that aren't in the above list (i.e. season articles with non-season based disambiguation), and determine what to do with each of these articles
  4.  Done Update {{Infobox television season}} ( Done) and {{Infobox television episode}} ( Done) to format based on the new title format
  5.  Done Move all articles in the first list, and approved articles from the second list.
  6.  Done Update usages of {{Episode list/sublist}}
  7. Update all links to the articles in the first list, including those in {{main}} and {{see also}}, across all namespaces.
    1. Important to update links from navigation templates such as Template:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., as redirect links aren't bolded.
  8. Update {{DISPLAYTITLE}}
  9.  Done Create a list of categories such as Category:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 5) episodes.
  10. Move categories in list to new name style (Category:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 5 episodes).
  11. Fix {{Article history}} GAN links (like this).
  12.  Done Fix {{IMDb episodes}}.
  13.  Done Add |italic_title=no to usages of {{Infobox album}} in articles that also use {{Infobox television season}}
  14.  Done {{Category series navigation}}.
  15. {{Television episode ratings}} PAGENAMEBASE caption.

This is only the beginning of a more comprehensive list; feel free to add any further updates. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories should also be updated to reflect the new name. Example: Category:Adventure Time (season 1) episodes. Gonnym (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the list at #2, it should include also Draft namespace. Gonnym (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All links using the old format should be retained as redirects per WP:SURPRISE as most readers and editors aren't aware of the RFC. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure you understand the premise of SURPRISE; can you quote what part of it you think applies? -- Alex_21 TALK 23:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether that is the right policy or not, there is no particularly good reason to get rid of the redirects that will result from these several thousand moves. BD2412 T 23:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They should also be retained to prevent breaking external links. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And is there any particular reason we should keep the redirects, especially those in {{main}} links above episode table transclusions (for example, List of Stranger Things episodes#Season 1 (2016)), and those in navboxes (for example, where the season article will no longer be bolded due to not being linked properly in the navbox; i.e. "Season 1" will not be bolded in {{Stranger Things}} at Stranger Things season 1)? -- Alex_21 TALK 23:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Links in closed discussions should remain the same, maintaining the redirect. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure how closed discussions in the talkspace connects to my examples above in the mainspace. Also the quote from SURPRISE? -- Alex_21 TALK 00:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understood correctly, they meant not to delete the redirect titles. Replacing the actual links in the article is something that I agree should happen. Gonnym (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, absolutely, the newly-created redirects from disambiguated to non-disambiguated should remain. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replace section redirecting links, but links in articles not having that peculiarity would, at least, not be any sort of priority. BD2412 T 00:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Implementing the outcome of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles already exists too. This will definitely be beneficial. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has responded to the link above, willing to assist with a bot-run mass move of the articles. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA filed. -- Alex_21 TALK 20:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also create a mass list at User:Alex 21/sandbox/NCTV of all articles that use {{Infobox television season}} (i.e. TV season articles), and split them into four sections - the three categories of name format as listed under #2 of the above list (with their expected moves), and any leftover articles (many of which won't require any action and can be removed). There are 7,699 of which fall into the three above name categories; there are 9,734 (including user pages) 9,397 articles listed in total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 21 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DISPLAYTITLE wouldn't need to be adjusted. The infobox automatically takes care of italicization. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox television season/sandbox has been updated. Please check the infobox with the new titles to make sure I didn't miss anything. Gonnym (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note now that the BRFA has been filed to move all articles, the clean-up will likely need to proceed as soon as possible after this (as, for example, episode summaries won't be viewable on season articles). -- Alex_21 TALK 20:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BRFA trial has been approved and completed, meaning barring any concerns, the full move of all articles is likely to proceed imminently. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the American Idol moves, the "season x" are also italicized. Can that be corrected before all of the other page moves? -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That will likely be a part of the infobox updates, as that is where the italicization takes place, and that particular update needs to happen after the page moves. -- Alex_21 TALK 22:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bot request has been fully approved - all articles will be moved presently, and then infobox, italicization, and episode-table fixes can be made immediately after. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why were episode summaries removed due to this? I read these summaries extensively. Bramton1 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were not removed, they are just temporarily hidden until this process is completed due to how the episode tables work. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When will these be put back? Anon2112 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the process is completed . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely ridiculous. A ton of information people rely on has disappeared from Wikipedia with no timeline for restoration. Horrible decision. 38.49.79.128 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copy my below reply: "If you would like to offer to take part in the high amount of work facing editors, your participation would be appreciated; if you would not like to take part, then your patience would be appreciated even more." It's being done, unfortunately we're not time-travelling wizards. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox code is now live. Any issues should be brought up in the template's talk page. As a side note from someone that didn't vote, I really hope this was worth it as the amount of work this has taken (and still ongoing) is pretty high. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned with the bot changing a user-based consensus for the season article titling. What I am a bit annoyed about is that it's been changing the article titles while not simultaneously removing the same brackets around each season title from the header coding for each episode in Template:Episode table. Because of this every single summary is automatically closed off right now. Is there a plan in place to make the bot remove these as well? Removing it manually would take forever.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is already listed as a known item that needs to be done in the checklist, has been acknowledged in the thread, has been explained at WT:FILM (#ANTM ShortSummaries suppressed?), and is being worked on at the bot request linked up-thread. It seems as if there are plans to take care of it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
information Note to all of the above and future concerned editors: A lot of recent traffic here, to be expected. It's unfortunate if editors disagree with the new formatting; however, the RFC was opened 28 December 2023 and closed 8 March 2024 with a clear consensus after over two months on both the idea of reformatting the titles, and the format in which to change them to. If you disagree with the RFC, there are likely venues dedicated to that.
This was not a random act, the moving of articles, it was planned in accordance with the list of updates below, this was a planned event. Yes, there may be a few delays in the updates, but they will be done. If you would like to offer to take part in the high amount of work facing editors, your participation would be appreciated; if you would not like to take part, then your patience would be appreciated even more. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is changing links inclusive of Navboxes? Otherwise that should be added. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why it's a subpoint of update #7 above, updates to links will happen across all namespaces, which includes the templatespace. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice that it was added. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Episode list/sublist}} usages should all now be updated and summaries visible again. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For 7.1 (template links) we could use the list at User:Alex 21/sandbox/NCTV and get links to links on that page from the template namespace. Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a new issue with season episode categories and Template:Category series navigation not working. Gonnym (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've dome some debugging and know why {{Category series navigation}} isn't working. Module:Category_series_navigation#L-980 requires the addition of an extra space, updating it to firstpart..' '..t..' '..lastpart (I can give a detailed explanation as to why). Do we want to do this now (linking won't work for old-named categories anymore), or after all categories have been renamed (linking won't work for newly-named categories until then)? -- Alex_21 TALK 13:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can wait as these categories are still linked by their parent. Gonnym (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been fixed by another editor to accomodate for both styles. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Template:Television episode ratings's caption based on PAGENAMEBASE is now also broken. Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are redirects (for seasons without standalone articles) going to be moved as well? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of redirects how about episode redirects, Dancing Queen (Legends of Tomorrow) or Daddy Darhkest, contents of this Category:Redirects from episodes. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning this question, they should all be updated by a bot at some point as a double redirect per WP:DOUBLE. Concerning the first redirects question, I'm not sure. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussions

[edit]
I think there should be a Hyphen before adding season number. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too late thats already been discussed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm given a serious consideration of setting up a new consensus discussion that will have a special character in TV show season article titles instead of using space. Space is not a solution to TV show season article titles, having special characters on it is. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do it then it'll be WP:SNOWed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant These sorts of replies really aren't helping or being contributive. Please be educational; the above editor has been informed of the situation. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is better to add a colon after the title. Example: Family Guy: Season 11 Guy Without Name (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already covered this . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who uses Wikipedia all the time… this looks awful. Who on earth approved this? And that robot who’s been doing the changes have messed up every single article.2A00:23EE:1518:63D1:D000:9FF1:1E62:A007 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this new style looks awful...unfortunately didn't notice this discussion and was therefore unable to participate in it. This change is adding so much more unnecessary work to enforce a consensus that just isn't helpful to the project. The new titles are less accessible as they are relying on italics, they increase the number of internal disambiguators in titles and cause multiple titles to have less clarity and be more ambiguious. Happily888 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really wish I had seen this discussion earlier as I would have strongly discouraged the use of Italics for the same reason. Italics are a massive accessibility issue. Not just because of the reasons mentioned by @Happily888 but also for users with disability access needs like myself who rely on certain tools to access online spaces. It's an unnecessary complication that adds no value to the Season titles. Racheal Emilin (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does that change the title of an article being, for example Attack on Titan season 1? The subject of that article, without italics, remains exactly what it's meant to be. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, punctuation changes how things are read and helps discern what is and isn't part of a title: "Chicago (musical)" or "Chicago musical" don't read the same as "Chicago musical", "NCIS (TV series)" or "NCIS TV series" isn't the same as "NCIS TV series", and "Georgia (country)" doesn't make as much sense when titled as "Georgia country". Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the title of those are quite literally just Chicago, or just NCIS; we then disambiguate what exactly it is through the parenthesis and thus how it's different to anything else called that. By that example, Game of Thrones (season 2) describes Game of Thrones's second season as being something that is (again) titled literally just Game of Thrones, that is a "season 2" as opposed to a "TV series" - that makes no sense. It's the second season of an entity called Game of Thrones, so it's a subset of something else, not an identically titled entity, thus disambiguation does not apply correctly. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not satisfied with the mass move. I'm not too happy with the mass move. I think it should either a status quo or a colon. Without special characters for TV show seasons is not acceptable. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again there was already a discussion on this . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having space on TV show season article title is inconsistent. Special characters like the Parentheses are there for consistency reasons and that RFC has affected the consistency of it. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the mass move has been completed, all articles are consistent with one another, and all match the title of their parent article. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having space on TV show season articles is not consistent with the grammar of it. That is a problem you should've thought about. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're posting the same issues in multiple locations. Stick to one. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. The "support" !votes in the RfC that led to this change were almost all based on ILIKEIT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate if editors disagree with the new formatting Well, can't say I'm surprised. I continue to believe this change provides no benefit, and if anything, is detrimental to readers and worsens readability. I'm always reminded of the Vector 2022 debacle and how that turned out, but I no longer have the energy to continue pushing this. I'm glad to see more and more people (who likely weren't aware of the RfC since this is a project page) are coming forward with similar concerns. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These "similar concerns" were over three weeks ago, but thank you for your opinion. If you'd like to go through the proper channels to contest it, by all means; unfortunately, otherwise, simply saying "this is bad" does not further a collaborative environment. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, three weeks ago because I haven't been very active of late and have been busy with real life. I don't think that invalidates my comment though. As stated, I'm not contesting this at this time; I was just putting it out there that there are continued problems with the new formatting and I anticipate others will raise similar concerns further down the line. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we look forward to satisfying those concerns in the future. No good work or deed goes unpunished. -- Alex_21 TALK 10:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note how joyful I am that we've now got rid of the brackets. This has been bugging me for twelve years! Morwen (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical updates 2

[edit]

Apologies for the lack of updates to #Technical updates. I've archived the above list and condensed it down to the following:

  1. Update all links to the articles in User:Alex 21/sandbox/NCTV, including those in {{main}} and {{see also}}, across all namespaces (especially navigation templates such as {{Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.}}).
  2. Move categories in User:Alex 21/sandbox/NCTV/2 to new name style (Category:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 5 episodes).
  3. Fix {{Article history}} GAN links (like this).
  4. Fix caption in {{Television episode ratings}} using PAGENAMEBASE.

-- Alex_21 TALK 07:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Season categories in Category:Wikipedia featured topics categories also need to be moved. Gonnym (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should be done with titles like:
Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the Pops (4th October 1973)

[edit]

Currently Top of the Pops (4th October 1973) is titled unlike every other episode article with the title and disambiguation being flipped. Any ideas how to better rename this? Gonnym (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to say rename it to Episode 500 (Top of the Pops), using disambiguation of the series, but then you could also just rename it to Episode 500 without disambiguation, since the article doesn't exist. The latter title would be supported by similar examples such as Episode 400 of Neighbours, Episode 1094 of Casualty, or Episode 4466 of Eastenders. -- Alex_21 TALK 14:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found two other episode articles for the series, so I'll go with your suggestion. I'll probably rename it with the dab so all three are consistent, but if anyone feels differently they are welcomed to rename it without. Gonnym (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hawkeye (TV series)

[edit]

Hello, this is a notice that there is currently a requested move at Talk:Hawkeye (TV series)#Requested move 28 July 2024 in which it is being proposed to move it back to Hawkeye (1994 TV series) to provide further disambiguation from another series with the same title, which is currently located at Hawkeye (miniseries). I have brought up the TV naming conventions and WP:SMALLDETAILS, although other editors believe differently. Any comments there would be much appreciated! Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Episode title disambiguations

[edit]

So this started because of a comic, but the way TV episode articles are formatted was used as justification, but it made me wonder. Why are episode titles supposed to be disambiguated with (Show Title) instead of (Show Title episode)? One reason I ask is because I'm pretty sure that specifying what something actually is instead of just what it's associated with was one of the main reasons for that big change to how articles about TV show seasons are titled earlier this year, wasn't it? Where the parenthesis around the seasons were removed; an example given at the time was something like, The Simpsons (season 6) shouldn't be titled that way because it's not a "season 6" called "The Simpsons", it's season 6 of "The Simpsons". (edit: just saw the discussion is still on this page, see Alex_21's comment from 3 January 2024 ["Re-using my above quote..."])
Yet while that format change proposal was successful, the same reasoning does not seem to be applied to episode titles (or characters apparently, looking further at this page). Going by the same logic behind the seasons proposal, a title like, say, College (The Sopranos), would nonsensically suggest the article is about a "The Sopranos" called "College". Now I doubt anyone would actually think that, but then why did season pages need to change to follow that logic? Other types of media seem to also follow this reasoning, like how films are disambiguated with (year film) instead of just (year). (edit: some other things like lists split up by year don't follow this trend, but I'm only talking about articles for individual media here.)
I doubt any serious proposal to change this would get much traction, but I'm just wondering what other people think, since it seems like something of a double standard. Or I might just be looking way too hard into it. Ringtail Raider (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would likely be an even bigger undertaking to get this fixed than the season change was, but I agree that the current naming convention doesn't make much sense and is probably more in need of changing than the season articles were. I would support a change to "Episode Title (episode)" as the default disambiguation when there is already an article with the same name, and if there are multiple episodes with the same name then "Episode Title (Series Title episode)". The same should apply to characters and other elements. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)&oldid=1254106390"