Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

What is the correct disambiguation here?

I just found Top Gear (Hunan TV series) and Top Gear (Dragon TV series). Both aired in China, one in 2011 and one in 2014-15. I would think that the correct disambiguation would be Top Gear (yyyy Chinese TV series). Any thoughts? --AussieLegend (✉) 20:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

They only need "by year" disambiguation: Top Gear (2011 TV series) and Top Gear (2014 TV series), as per the two UK series listed at Top Gear. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The first consideration might be to see if a significant number of English sources refer to these as "Top Gear China" as opposed to "Top Gear China" (note italics), but my quick look at the current sources doesn't prove that out to me. Using years alone on these is bad practice because the shows run concurrently or within only a couple years of each other in the various markets, and readers shouldn't be expected to know the premiere year to distinguish between them. I would agree with the moves to "yyyy Chinese TV series" along with moves of the others to "yyyy UK TV series". -- Netoholic @ 07:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course you do. But double-disambiguation would be incorrect in this case, just as it's been incorrect in pretty much every other instance you've suggested it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
One other thing – these are all arguably "TV programs/TV programmes", not TV series, but as they're all disambiguated by "TV series" currently, I don't see any point in switching them all now... But, yeah: Top Gear (2011 TV series) and Top Gear (2014 TV series) will do the trick. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Not opposed to making the change while addressing the other concerns. -- Netoholic @ 05:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of the word "cycle" instead of season for disambiguation

Is the word "cycle" used for season disambiguation valid? This seems to be used in all various Top Model season articles (Category:Top Model series), but I couldn't find a naming style over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Top Model to support it nor is it mentioned here.

I would say no – "cycle" could be used in the article prose, but should not be used as a disambiguator. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think more than a tiny fraction of 1% of our readers would know what that's supposed to mean.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I feel like this issue has come up before but I can't find the discussion about it. But yes, for article naming purposes these should be moved to reflect common language and be moved to "(season #)" disambiguation. This isn't the only reality-competition show which has two seasons per calendar year, and they all use "season". Article text can remain as-is, as long as the term is explained to the readers in the prose. -- Netoholic @ 07:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The 20/20's

OK, so the following articles exist (from 2020 (disambiguation)):

The problem? Every single one of these is either a news show or a documentary show, which means they're all "TV programs", not "TV series" (as they are currently disambiguated). Is it worth it to hold a WP:RM on this to move them all to "TV program" disambig. (e.g. 20/20 (U.S. TV program)), or is it better just to leave well enough alone?... I'll ping Gonnym to this discussion to see what they have to say. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

If you got the will power and time, then no reason why. the first 3 are barely a stub and would be surprised if anyone even cares. --Gonnym (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Eh just move em. This is straight out of the guideline. --Netoholic @ 13:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:TITLECHANGES is part of the policy – if this is done, it's probably better to do it as a WP:RM, so it's all above board... But, yeah, if anything warrants being diambig'ed by "TV program", it's TV news shows... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Well then consider my reply to be an endorsement to RM them. -- Netoholic @ 07:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
This is obvious enough you can just move them, or list them at WP:RM/TR as noncontroversial. TITLECHANGES prohibits neither.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done – taken to WP:RM/TR, as suggested. I agree that the first three of these will be uncontroversial moves – the only one that might generate controversy is the U.S. 20/20, and if anyone objects to that one, I'll just go through a WP:RM... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done All pages moved, redirects created. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Hidden (TV series)#Requested move 28 July 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hidden (TV series)#Requested move 28 July 2018. Issue is whether "Welsh"/Wales can be used for "by country" disambiguation. As other articles are disambiguated by "Scottish TV series", and "Quebec TV series" and "Quebec", this question is directly relevant to the NCTV guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Leaving aside any rare edge cases where both year or country can't help - why would Welsh or Scottish be OK? And if they are, why would UK be OK? If we are going by the member countries of the UK then UK does not mean "English" (the people). --Gonnym (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
FTR, I don't think any of "Welsh", "Scottish" or "Quebec" should be used, because none of them are actually "countries" (and, as you say, this could open a "slippery slope" in which eventually "Texan TV series" or "British Columbian TV series" could be used to disambiguate!!). However, where this potentially becomes an issue is "Hong Kong" – "Hong Kong" isn't a "country" either, yet we widely disambiguate using "Hong Kong TV series", etc. under NCTV. We probably should not do that, but I can live with that being the only "exception", as long as we don't add "Welsh", "Scottish" or "Quebec" on top of it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

What are "music competition shows"?...

Are "music/singing competition shows" like The Voice (franchise) and American Idol "game shows" (under NCTV) – Yes or no?... Discuss. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I think NCTV would consider them to be a (TV series), much like other reality-competition shows like Big Brother and Survivor, because they present a narrative progression that (game show)s aren't known for. -- Netoholic @ 07:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't sure. I can definitely see the argument for "TV series" over "game show" for these... What about something like Star Search – as far as I know, there weren't "continuing elements" to that one, and they wrapped up each set of contestants within each episode: so would Star Search qualify as a "game show" then? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Another example would be something like Penn & Teller: Fool Us – I don't think it's a "TV series", but I'm not sure it's a "game show" either... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:America's Next Top Model (cycle 1)#Requested move 30 July 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:America's Next Top Model (cycle 1)#Requested move 30 July 2018. Gonnym (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Creating a consistent naming convention style for character names across media types

During the discussion over at Talk:John Diggle (character)#Requested move 3 July 2018 about the correct article name, I've noticed that there was some inconsistency between film and TV articles when it came to character article title disambiguation. I then decided to research the naming convention for character names also with comics, books and video games - which all form part of the Arts, Entertainment and Media section of the Naming Convention guideline, and which have overlapping articles. I've noticed that while there exists a somewhat inconsistency between the guidelines, it is not something that cannot be slightly tweaked in order for all pages about fictional characters to have the same naming style. I've broken down the following into different parts for easier reading.

Current naming style:

  • WP:NCTV (TV):
    • For an article created about a character, add the show name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name. - Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer).
    • Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which has its own page, disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element) - Daredevil (Daredevil character).
  • WP:NCFILM (Film):
    • If disambiguation is needed, add the film/film series/franchise title in parentheses; eg. Character name (title). - The Bride (Kill Bill) (film), Number 2 (Austin Powers)(film series), Rey (Star Wars) (franchise).
    • If the character's name is the same as the film title or if the character appears in many different film titles, use Character name (character). - Machete (character).
  • WP:NCCOMICS (Comics): The guide itself is not written properly and at times contradicts itself[a]. I've tried to sort this in the way I understood it.
    • Only when needing to further disambiguate a character's article (when "comics" is applicable to more than one article of the same name), and only when the codename/real name disambiguation noted here cannot be used (such as due to not knowing the character's "real name"), then, and only then, use: (character). This should be the last choice in disambiguation, when all others appear to be inappropriate. - From this I gather that Red Robin (comics)) is ok.
    • If a character name has been used by more than one publisher, use the publisher name to disambiguate. - Scarecrow (DC Comics), Scarecrow (Marvel Comics).
    • To disambiguate between more than one character of a single codename, use the following format: Codename (character name) - Green Lantern (Hal Jordan).
    • To disambiguate between multiple codenames of a single character, use the following format: Character name (codename) - Examples given were not in the style they were supposed to be. Couldn't find any examples in use.
    • Articles primarily about characters appearing in a comic should use the phrase (character) Poison Ivy (character).
  • WP:NCVG (Video games):
    • For characters: Disambiguate by appending the series or individual game title in parentheses after the character's name - Missile (Ghost Trick) (single game), Link (The Legend of Zelda) (franchise).
    • If the subject's name is the same as the game or game series, then use "(character)" - Rayman (character)).
  • WP:NCBOOKS (Books): Has no naming convention for character names.

Notes:

  1. ^ Disambiguation section: Articles primarily about characters appearing in a comic should use the phrase (character) vs Character articles section: Only when needing to further disambiguate a character's article (when "comics" is applicable to more than one article of the same name), and only when the codename/real name disambiguation noted here cannot be used (such as due to not knowing the character's "real name"), then, and only then, use: (character). This should be the last choice in disambiguation, when all others appear to be inappropriate

Research summary:

  • Film and video game naming conventions prefer to use a series/franchise disambiguation rather than use the specific film/video that the character appeared in or debuted in.
  • Comics naming conventions use the general (comics) disambiguation unless that character name is used by more than 1 publisher, then it uses ("publisher name"). Since the main stories of a publisher (at least for DC/Marvel) are in a same shared universe this makes "publisher name" somewhat similar to a franchise one.
  • TV naming convention is the only one not allowing a ("franchise") disambiguation.
  • TV naming convention is the only one not allowing (character) disambiguation (but does allow ("title" character).
  • Books guideline does not have a naming convention for book only characters.

Problems:

  • Articles which use a style of disambiguation not valid per guidelines:
  • Arguments about whether a character or a franchise is more of type "A" than type "B" in order to decide about the use of style.
    • Do Star Trek / Star Wars articles belong under TV, Film, Comics or Books? Current pages with a disambiguation use (Star Trek) / (Star Wars), regardless of media.

New examples that came up during the discussion:

Suggestions:

  • Deprecate the use of (comics) for the following reasons:
    • The current pages usually include the appearances of the character in comics, as well as in animated and live action TV, film and video games.
    • TV, film and video games use the TV/Film/Game name as disambiguation instead of using the media it came out. There are no Spike (television) / Number 2 (film) / Link (video game).
  • Create a naming consistency between all guidelines in this order:
  1. ("franchise") / ("shared universe") / ("publisher name")
  2. ("film series") / ("video game series") / ("book series")
  3. ("film") / ("tv series") / ("video game") / ("comic book series name") OR "Codename" ("character name") OR ("alt location") (as in "Earth-One") / ("book") / ("Theater production")[a]
  4. (character) (or ("title" character)?)

Notes:

  • The following style should also work for fictional elements that have an article and need disambiguation.
  • Posted a notice to the mentioned naming convention talk pages.
  1. ^ Added this option mid-discussion

Discussion on character disambiguation

This order should preserve the already established conventions, altering them only slightly in order to have a consistent style that is shared between all media types. Would appreciate hearing feedback on this. --Gonnym (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I absolutely love your suggestion for this "naming consistency" 1-4 order. I do believe being the least specific as possible is the right choice, so "Spock (Star Trek character)" (for example) would be a good disambiguation. I suppose this would also result in "Toad (Mario character)" or "Toad (Nintendo character)". As you may have noticed, I prefer adding "character" to these disambiguations because I generally assume the subject is a specific instance of that what is written in the disambiguation brackets (this may be a discussion for another time, however). Lastly, I approve of deprecating "comics" for a lot of reasons. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • "Spock (Star Trek)" and "Spock (Star Trek character)" are both just as easily interpreted, so unless its needed for another reason, the word "character" just adds length without a lot of value. I think we use this in the WP:CRITERIA to balance CONCISE without sacrificing much PRECISION. -- Netoholic @ 11:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: under "Current naming" you list a TV example involving Daredevil (Daredevil character) - this isn't part of the current NCTV, not sure where you got it or if its meant to be part of your suggestions. -- Netoholic @ 11:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I missed copying the last word, which I added now (but it was available on the guideline page). This is the current naming convention from NCTV (even if the Daredevil TV version page does not exist, as it was an example). --Gonnym (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't like the suggestion of considering TV series at a different "level" as any other series. Series are series, TV episodes are like individual films, books, or comics issues. NCFILM uses the name of the film series (also called a "franchise"). In the same way, TV series are themselves sometimes also called a "franchise", which is organizationally why we disambiguate the characters based on the name of the TV series. Conceptually, in all cases TV/film/VG we're naming at a franchise level. Now, some franchises - Star Trek, Star Wars, and Marvel Cinematic Universe - grow to include independent, significant presences in multiple media forms, and you'll typically find those at a primary topic (consider that Star Trek/Star Wars are about the franchise, where the original works are displaced to Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Wars (film)). The cut-off between true "cross-media franchise" vs "single-media franchise with some other media spin-offs" is something we discuss on a case-by-case basis often. But we aren't naming them that way because they share any kind of "shared universe". They may share one incidentally, or there may be multiple shared universes within the franchise if you consider reboots, but it isn't why we name any of them. "Shared universes" should never be part of our consideration. I realize "Marvel Cinematic Universe" may have "universe" in the name, it may be a shared universe, but we're not naming articles on that basis - we name articles with it because its a franchise. Full disclosure, I've written those sections in NCTV, NCFILM, and NCVG in the past, as a way to bring some commonality among them, especially when they overlap in regards to cross-media franchises. I look forward to sharing ideas with NCBOOKS and NCCOMICS on how to find some commonality in organization (especially on characters) but I'm not sure we can address all concerns in one place. -- Netoholic @ 11:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • TV series can be both singular and plural. A TV series in the singular sense is not a franchise. It can be a franchise if it includes other material from other sources (film, spin-offs TV series, books, etc). A film series is also not a really a franchise, its a film series, notice how NCFILM (which you wrote) makes the distinction between the two. So no, TV shows are not named after a franchise. The reason that TV series is on a different level (level 3 instead of 2) is because for TV character articles, there is no #2. I was trying to give a simplified overview, but I might have made a bad assumption that it would be understood. For TV characters the order would be - franchise/shared universe -> TV series -> Character. Hope this clears up any confusion. --Gonnym (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Oh there's no confusion, I know what I was thinking when I wrote em. A standalone TV series and or a films series can rarely be called a franchise in passing as an alternative to "series". The more and more "extra" works get added on (spin-off books, a web-only special, etc) the more often people may call it a franchise. For example, Cheers only had one spin-off in the same media and some minor crossovers, and its called a franchise sometimes.[1][2] The Austin Powers film series is sometimes called a movie franchise[3], even though its only lightly dabbled in spin-off media (VGs). Its a gradient, and one we try here to wrap some guidelines around, but it always comes down to discussion. For TV articles, the series is #2. The episodes/seasons are what are in #3. It'd go franchise→series→episode→character. -- Netoholic @ 12:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm happy to see your ordering is not that dissimilar to my suggestion. I do have a question regarding the episode option. Can you give an example of an article you'd create with that disambiguation (and would something that occurs in one episode only be notable for an article?) --Gonnym (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
          • Do you just want an example of any TV episode, because there are episode articles for several major TV series. See WP:NCTV#Episode and character articles. -- Netoholic @ 13:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
            • No, I meant for a character using an episode as a disambiguation. My suggestion wasn't for removing all previous disambiguations and use only these, but for character (and perhaps other "elements" (ships, planets, weapons, etc.)) that need a disambiguation.--Gonnym (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
              • Now I get it. I don't know of any TV character that is disambiguated with an episode title. The closest would be a guest star/minor character and for those we'd put them into a "List of ### characters" type article (books often do the same). I think this is a point where your layer method breaks down a bit. Using your paradigm, TV series should be level #2, and layer #3 would be -unused- for TV-related purposes. -- Netoholic @ 13:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
                • Why would my method break down? For character articles that are only TV related there are only 3 levels - franchise→series→character. --Gonnym (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Regarding the observation "TV naming convention is the only one not allowing (character) disambiguation but does allow ("title" character)" - this is a matter of it just being incredibly rare for a show to have the same name as a character worthy of its own article. Even your example in the main section of "Daredevil (Daredevil character)" wouldn't happen on two counts - the article would be named for the character not the rarely-used (in the TV series) codename, and its part of the MCU, so it'd be "Matt Murdock (Marvel Cinematic Universe)". I think this points to how we often leave out very rare edge cases from the naming conventions, to avoid instruction creep. -- Netoholic @ 04:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
        • That part of the guideline isn't even something I added, but something currently written there. Seems weird to point that issue out. Edit: I noticed a couple of issues, while you are correct that "Matt Murdock (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" would be a better name than "Daredevil (Daredevil character)" in this example, you were just opposed to using "Marvel Cinematic Universe" so I'm a bit confused. Also, the same example can be used for Jessica Jones or Luke Cage which both have TV shows named after them (and will need "character" if not using "MCU"). --Gonnym (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would oppose disambiguation on the lines of "(media-type character)". Characters jump media types all the time. I have other comments but not right now... --Izno (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    As for "(comics)", there was a recent RFC (past year or two) which clarified that "(comics)" was not an OK disambiguation for characters. It might not have reached everywhere in NCCOMICS. --Izno (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The proposal is acceptable to me. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
For secondary characters in such fictional works I don't see much of a problem either, e.g. Mignon (Schubert) is an article about Schubert's settings of poetry about a secondary character in Goethe's Wilhelm Meister novels. Don't see what additional guidance could be of any use there.
Of course, any examples illustrating that this is not a solution in search of a problem in WP:NCBOOKS, WP:NCMUSIC and WP:NCOPERA realms would be welcome. Or, in the other realms, where this appears to be problematic, take a look at the realms where this seems to be less problematic, maybe there are some ideas which you can imitate from there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that input. Do you have any Books/Opera article examples of a character? The ones you gave might be the character's name but they are for the work itself (other than Alice I meant). For TV and Film its less possible to give one person credit. While some would argue that there is an "Auteur" for a film, this theory got a lot of criticism. For comics its also hard as you first got the original creators, which are usually at least two (writer and artist). After time a new team comes in and writes the same series and the character is considered to be the same (if set in the same comic universe) --Gonnym (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
We do have Ishmael (Moby-Dick), which matches the convention suggestion brought forth. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I did some more research into this. Using the name of the stand-alone story: Headless Horseman (Legend of Sleepy Hollow), Jackal (The Day of the Jackal); Using the series: Ben Gunn (Treasure Island), Akela (The Jungle Book), Gilly (A Song of Ice and Fire), Jane Porter (Tarzan); Using "character" when the character and story share the same name: David Copperfield (character), Mary Poppins (character); Examples of names that should probably change Jack Crawford (character), Gothmog (The First Age). From my short research it seems that most book names do follow my suggested proposal. --Gonnym (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
(ecx2) Books/Opera article examples of a character:
The thing is, I can't find one that is problematic in WP:NCBOOKS, WP:NCMUSIC or WP:NCOPERA realms. That may be lack of imagination on my part: anyhow examples that demonstrate a problem would best be presented before amending these guidelines. The Ishmael example does not show an issue that needs addressing either.
What is definitely missing from the OP proposal would be "(author name)" as a disambiguator, for characters created by a particular author. Finally I found one that is imho problematic: The Saint (Simon Templar), that should better be changed to The Saint (Charteris) imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Freischütz, William Tell and the main Robin Hood article don't have any disambiguation so they are fine as they are. Robin Hood (ballet), Robin Hood (comic opera), Robin Hood (opera) are not about the character but about the work. The other characters usages of Robin Hood are good examples that should fall under the suggested proposal. I'm not familiar with The Saint, but under this proposal (following the example from the comics style), this can fall under "Codename" ("character name") (which is the style it currently uses). I could also see an optional name in Simon Templar (The Saint) as "character name" ("book series") (which is also following the proposal). However, using The Saint (Charteris) would be a wrong name as according to the article, he wasn't the only one writing and the article also deals with depiction of The Saint in other media which he didn't write either. --Gonnym (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Re. "The Saint in other media": seems Charteris initiated most (if not all) branches of media depictions of the character he created, and they are, without exception, portrayals of the character created by Charteris – not a single one that would not be a bootleg, a parody, or create copyright revenue for Charteris or his heirs. Compare The Four Seasons (Vivaldi)#Derivative works, listing dozens of works by other creators, spanning a period of nearly three centuries – it's not because the article title uses "(Vivaldi)" as disambiguator that these other works don't belong in the article.
Anyhow, whether or not it applies to the character created by Charteris, not mentioning "(author name)" as a possibility is imho a fatal flaw of the current proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Out of the 11 or so films in the article, only 4 show Leslie Charteris has writing credits. Those also might not be correct (didn't check the sources) as he has writing credits in the infobox of The Saint (1997 film) even tough he was dead at this point for 4 years. I'm sure no one is arguing that he isn't the creator of the character and of the novels, but he isn't the creator of the films or shows that are based on it. That's what an adaption is. Regarding not having an option for "(author name)", as I wrote earlier, its just not acceptable in TV and Film mediums and I'm pretty sure it's not possible in comics as writers change. Even Stan Lee didn't write most of the comics the characters that he created have been in, and the point of this discussion is to try and find a common style for all. As shown before, the current style of The Saint (Simon Templar) works, as does an optional Simon Templar (The Saint) - which is better? That can be decided on a per article basis. --Gonnym (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd still favour The Saint (Charteris), regardless of later developments (per the Vivaldi example).
And yes, a proposal for naming conventions of fictional characters that refuses to consider anything, especially non-problematic established practices, falling outside of "TV and Film mediums" (Books? Operas?) is imho fatally flawed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
How am I refusing to consider anything "falling outside of 'TV and Film mediums'"? I've addressed both Books and Comic issues (with numerous examples of books already using the suggested style). Please do not misrepresent my points or arguments. Also, calling what the examples you gave as "non-problematic established practices" is just misleading as the examples you presented are not character articles or do not need disambiguation so its hard to discuses that issue. The Four Seasons (Vivaldi)#Derivative works is not a character article. The listed works there are not character links either. I've tried searching for theater and opera character articles with disambiguation and found these: Thérèse Raquin (character), Jim Crow (character), Abanazar (pantomime), Nicky (Avenue Q), Rod (Avenue Q), Gianduja (commedia dell'arte), Isabella (commedia dell'arte), Lélio (Commedia dell'arte), Gilles (stock character) - from these I can see that the use of ("production") (as in Avenue Q) which would be similar to #3; ("style") for non-specific plays that instead are based on genre as Commedia dell'arte (this is outside of my expertise but I'm sure someone can describe this better); (character) which is used here also. I'm not sure about ("stock character") but again, edge cases can be addressed in a later discussion (unless this is a valid type with multiple real examples and then it can be added now). --Gonnym (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Another issue with the OP proposal would be that I'd never use an unqualified "(character)" as disambiguator because of its diffuse ambiguity in multiple contexts, e.g.:
--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
You might have missed it but I did add a question in #4 by asking if it should be ("title" character), which address your concern. Also, (character) is currently used by all projects, including book articles as shown (David Copperfield (character), Mary Poppins (character) and others). If you think that needs to be deprecated as its ambiguity, that is another issue all together. --Gonnym (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to say I find this all a bit odd, there is no reason why a "franchise" can't be used as a disambig like for the MCU characters. Current guidelines shouldn't override being helpful and easily identifiable. It's clearly the right choice to use the (Marvel Cinematic Universe) for those articles. I'm not sure forcing a standard on all articles as if they were all under the same situations make sense. I feel like disambiguation is much more of a case-by-case thing.★Trekker (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @*Treker:, I'm not quite sure I understood your reasoning in the vote section compared to here. I agree with you here that "Marvel Cinematic Universe" should be allowed, but under the current guidelines it isn't, however your vote is in opposition to use that. What other concerns do you have (please note that most of the suggestion is what is currently in the all guidelines)? --Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I did not start this as a RFC or Vote on propose because I wanted to start a discussion instead, to get feedback, to find new issues and see how those can be addressed, and once done, then see what the consensus is, but another user decided to start one instead. I still hope anyone reading this decides to contribute and add to the discussion. I'll address for the last time (hopefully) Francis's issues, as they seem to either not understand the scope or not wanting to understand it. Deciding if a figure is fictional or real is done regardless of the title and has much more issues, including a WP:BLP policy. Having to decide if a character is a fictional universe from one or another, is again, something that is done regardless of the title. Regardless of a vote and its outcome, this is done each time a title is decided and must comply with one of the various naming conventions. When the editors that created Superman (Earth-One)/Superman (Earth-Two) did so, they knew they were creating a different universe article. This reasoning is the same for his other comments. When you write a new article, you know what the subject you are writing about is. Regarding his "solution in search of a problem", my proposal is not that far off from the current guidelines in all but the book and opera ones, as those just don't even mention characters. Saying this is a solution in search of a problem basically means that the naming convention as a whole is pointless (as he did not raise issues with a specific point, but rather with the whole process). It feels to me very disingenuous the way this was handled. --Gonnym (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey (naming convention for fictional characters)

  • Oppose – pretty much a solution in search of a problem, imho, per my comments (and the replies I got) above. Adds layers of complexity where solutions would often need to be assessed in a case-by-case scenario, because the more exceptional cases are often not alike anyhow: depends too much on what needs to be disambiguated from what (a real person from a fictional character; a fictional character in one fictional universe from one in another fictional universe; a semi-historic archetype from a fictional character with a distinct creator; etc; etc), and on what the content of the article is, etc. All of that can be discussed ad infinitum, but seems very unlikely such discussions would yield standard solutions that can be summarized in practical guidance applicable across multiple genres and across articles with a different kind of content and structure (e.g. overview of different creations based on the character vs. a description of the personality as apparent from the creations of the original creator, etc). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we should keep the guidelines separate, but aligned, with regards to characters. Not every guideline needs to cover every edge case and any sort of centralized convention would probably not serve any community as well. I do think there are some lessons which can be learned from each, and we should look to them when special circumstances arise or when updating the individual guidelines. Based on the suggestion section, I don't see NCTV ever needing to use (character) in the way NCFILM does because its very rare for a show to be named exactly the same as a character, and so its instruction creep to add it. I also strongly oppose "shared universe" being part of any sort of naming considerations, and instead use only franchise vs series distinction. -- Netoholic @ 04:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I made my case a bit earlier in the discussion, and I agree fully with Francis Schonken.★Trekker (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly support in theory; this stuff should definitely be normalized, both for reader non-confusion and to reduce editorial dispute. I don't much care about the specifics. I edit in all these topic areas, and do not favor one topical approach over the other. I will say that WP:AT#DAB and WP:DAB (and WP:CONCISE) want us to use the shortest clear disambiguation possible, and only expand it with details when necessary. So the default should be "(character)", regardless of medium of genre. After that, I don't think I really care and will just let others hash it out, unless I see something heading in a daft direction. PS: I don't think "(comics)" is a good idea. We don't do things like "Foo Barbaz (TV)" or "Foo Barbaz (films)", so I don't see what's magically different about comics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Going with a default/starting point of "(character)" leads often to more work and confusion, because, if a character needs disambiguation at all (as in, if its not already unique), it often conflicts with some other character in some media somewhere. We even have to have set index pages like Spike (character) for the most common character names. If we used character for all of them, we'd have to also add the title anyway. Using the title of the work/series/franchise from the start is almost always guaranteed to be unique (works rarely repeat character names) and don't have the problem of requiring future moves as new characters in other works are added. -- Netoholic @ 07:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    That sort of thing is true of any number of topics; the same rules apply. We use the shortest disambiguation necessary, and expand upon it only as necessary. E.g. "John Williams (Scottish ruby union player)" is only used if there's more than one John Williams who is a rugby player from Scotland and simultaneously there is more than one rugby union (not league) player by this name; otherwise we'd use "John Williams (Scottish rugby player)" or "John Williams (rugby union player)". [Actually, we seem to be dropping "player" in many cases for rugby in particular, which is probably bad idea, but that's immaterial for this discussion.] This topic isn't "strangely different" from others.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Eh you're just pointing out a situation that comes up based on a name that is common in everyday life. I'm saying that characters, as a class, run into this far more often than in other areas. Especially since characters can be not only first-last name but also codenames, last name only, nicknames, common words/phrases, etc. because creators often want character names to be interesting. They potentially conflict with so much more than simple personal names. -- Netoholic @ 08:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Sounds pretty self-contradictory to me. The reason we may need to disambiguate a fictional character name is that it recurs in different contexts with different referents; i.e., multiple topics are vying for the same name, so we need to add one or more more narrowly identifying keywords as disambiguators, but never more than necessary, to keep it concise. That's exactly the same situation with our sporty John Williamses. The disambiguation methodology can and should be the same. More to the point, it is the same, site-wide. We apply the same policy and guidelines at RM every single day to radically different topics. This doesn't cause problems. What causes problems is trying to make up a divergent "rule" for something on a topical basis. It leads to confusion and dispute.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, aren't you contradicting yourself by saying that the removal of "player" from disambiguations such as "John Williams (Scottish rugby player)" is a bad idea? Unless there is also a "John Williams (Scottish rugby coach)" or something, isn't "player" unneeded? --Khajidha (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
No, because it's actually identifying of the subject (precise and recognizable under the WP:CRITERIA). The problem with something like "I. P. Frehley (baseball)" is that he's not a baseball. Mis-disambiguations like this are worse than one-word-longer ones. Even within sports, only a few categories (at the demand of tendentious wikiproject people) are using short, weird "un-disambiguations". Those cases are something to undo, not emulate. A disambiguation that introduces another ambiguity is a failure, at least for some subset of readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I think its a mistake to assume disambiguation has to be A (B) where A is a B and call anything else "un-disambiguations". Some disambigs are to indicate a topical field B to which A belongs, such as in this very NC under WP:NCTV#Articles about television where television-related terms are disambiguated by the topic are as in Ghosting (television). Disambiguating using just the title of a show is the same way. This reduces redundacy as Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer character) provides no more information really than Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Once you're aware its a topic area about a fictional setting, then all personal names in that topic area must be characters. Also, I think your comment about "tendentious wikiproject people" is itself tendentious behavior. -- Netoholic @ 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
When the disambiguator doesn't lead to potential confusion for any readers, a shortened one can be okay, but it's uncommon for a reason (and many of our current short ones don't qualify). I'm in many wikiprojects, and have started plenty of them. I'm not suggesting that wikiproject people are tendentious; rather, that some of our tendentious people are in wikiprojects, which is obvious and factual. It would be utterly remarkable if it were not the case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support as already stated in my proposal. The suggested guideline is basically taking the already establishd project guidelines (and for those that don't have one, the established practices) and making small changes to make them consistent with each other. --Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with a caveat against the terminology 'shared universe'. Using an established franchise name (one used by producers/creators and not just fans), particularly to disambiguate characters who appear in multiple shows (such as Star Trek, Chicago (franchise) or Arrowverse) makes sense, but a 'shared universe' feels a little too vague and undefined. AutumnKing (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I understand your argument, but currently "shared universe" isn't specifically mentioned, while franchise is, and is the ground for opposing rationals on pages like the John Diggle linked above. What if we add a sentence that says something along the lines of "...Shared Universe (if the name is an official name for the set of works)" and also link to Shared universe (which itself could use some love)? --Gonnym (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
That definition would clear it up, as media franchise can cast the net too wide in some definitions. I strongly disagree to the current opposition at John Diggle (character), on the grounds that the guidelines already allow for disambiguation by franchise, and the Arrowverse is clearly a distinct franchise, spanning multiple formats. If including shared universe would clarify that, then I would support. AutumnKing (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

New Zealand and "program" vs. "programme"

We need to figure out what to do in the case of New Zealand English and the use of "program" vs. "programme". There was an RfC held on the spelling for Australian TV shows held here back in later 2017, and I just assumed that New Zealand went the same way on the question as Australia. However, lately I've been using both spellings for New Zealand TV show articles, depending on circumstances. So, the question is: Do we need to hold an(other) RfC on whether New Zealand TV show articles should follow the UK spelling or the Australian spelling on the word "programme/program"? Or is one clearly "accepted" over the other? (And how could we be sure?...) Or are we OK with both being used, depending? 'Cos I can tell you, there NZ TV show articles that are disambiguated both ways currently... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

TBH, according to common usage in reliable sources is a pretty bad line in the guideline, as that really isn't what's being used as a guide, as it's more "according to common usage in the country of origin" (as seen in the examples a few lines below). If it really is by country of origin then a list of what countries use what would be much easier for editors then to have to guess each time. --Gonnym (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
That's kind of what I'm try to go for here. Up to now, I've assumed that "programme" applies to just the British Isles, and related territories. If New Zealand also uses "programme", then it would be those, and New Zealand. But I think "program" is the preferred form pretty much everywhere else... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Re "lately I've been using both spellings for New Zealand TV show articles": How does what you're doing imply that we need another RfC? Why not just stop doing inconsistent things? LOL. Absent really strong evidence that NZ English has diverged from the rest of Commonwealth English, it should be programme. Last I researched this, maybe 5 years ago, there was a clear preference for that spelling in .nz and .au, as well as in .uk (and .hk, and .za, and .in, etc., etc.), for pretty much all contexts except computing. What's the off-site, RS evidence for a shift? I've yet to find a single reputably published style guide specifically for NZEng, for which New Hart's/Oxford and Fowler's are going to be the leading style guides, as in the rest of the non-North American anglosphere (aside from a few heavily US-influenced places with some English usage, like Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Okinawa, Guam, and the Philippines).
Asked and answered – the Australia RfC showed that preferences may be shifting. What I don't know is whether this is also true of New Zealand. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The risk with any such RFC is that you get a load of personal preferences, even from editors who aren't from the country concerned, which have to be ignored. Such matters rest on style guides and usage within the leading RS, not editor preferences. The New Zealand Herald came up highest on a quick Google search just now; running a site search on "programme" throws up tons of hits, both media related and in general language. Running a search on "program" mostly gives the "programme" hits again, except for a few, a couple relating to foreign news stories. I didn't spend more than a couple of minutes on this so don't claim this is necessarily representative. Nevertheless a more considered survey of relevant sources is the way to go. MapReader (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
It is probably a good idea if there is inconsistency in articles and between editors. The Australian RfC allowed all sides to present reasoned arguments for and against and settled the issue in the TV context. As an Australian, I would have assumed NZ would use the same spelling as Australia, however I couldn't find any academic evidence (NZ English dictionary references, academic papers on the spelling, etc) and having a quick look at websites of major NZ television channels, they also seem to use program/programme inconsistenly. An RfC would encourage more editors to research the issue. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
About 90% of the cases I see of someone replying with "asked and answered" it's a dodge to avoid answering, and that seems clearly to be the case here. So I will repeat, with question phrasing: An editor choosing to do inconsistent things doesn't mean we need an RfC, it means the editor needs to stop doing inconsistent things. Until we have reliably sourced, solid evidence of a strong shift in NZ English away from the rest of Commonwealth English use of "programme", we have no reason to stop using that spelling. We don't even that that evidence for Australian English, just some suggestion that such a shift might be happening; and much of that looks like original research to me (along the lines of "I found 'program' at the following .au sites, ergo there must be a sea change in Australian usage").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Checkpoint (Dutch TV show)

What is this?... I checked the Dutch Wiki article as well, and this reads to me like game show (though for children). It's either that, or a "TV program" – it definitely does not appear to be a "TV series" (with continuing story elements). IOW, it's basically one of those "competition TV programs" that may or may not qualify as "game shows". As this looks to be the only existing article on a TV show named Checkpoint, I'm thinking it's best moved to Checkpoint (game show)... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Checked a few videos from this (https://www.youtube.com/user/EOCheckpoint), and it doesn't have a lot of the elements I'd think are "game show". I'd suggest simply Checkpoint (Dutch TV program) as the safer option. The country is still needed due other TV and web series mentioned at Checkpoint#Arts and entertainment. -- Netoholic @ 07:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
No need for "Dutch" – this is the only TV show article with this title, currently. So just "TV program" is fine. Still, I think "game show" is better, a la something like Wipeout (2008 U.S. game show). I think we're making a mistake with these – that if one of these isn't filmed inside, in a TV studio, it's a "competition program" and we've been moving them to "TV program" reflexively. But stuff like this and American Ninja Warrior and Paradise Run are all really just "game shows" too, albeit game shows that are filmed out of doors... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Three different series named Compass all mistitled...

The naming/disambigation for the three TV programs named Compass is all FUBAR'ed – see Compass (disambiguation)#Television. I suggest moving them to Compass (Australian TV program), Compass (1965 TV program), and Compass (1986 TV program), respectively. Compass (Canadian TV series) and Compass (Canadian TV program) will have to point back to the disambig. page. Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Just doing them all by date might be simpler. There is no "ideal" way to do such disambiguation, because there's frequently going to be a year clash or a country clash. Here, we don't have a year clash. If we think that the country is important (or most important) to include, then "Compass (Canadian YYYY TV series)" might work better for those two, though the aficionados of compression above all else may object.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I thought about that, but the Aus. program premiered in 1988 which is a little too close to the 1986 Canadian program for comfort – so I think disambiguating that one "by country" is better than by year. (I'd certainly create a redirect at Compass (1988 TV program), though...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
We've been over this "too close" idea before. It's not. In every other area, we use year disambiguations as necessary, and a single year difference is sufficient. If it were not, then we would not use it. Our readers can tell the difference between "6" and "7". The idea that a two year difference is somehow not enough just doesn't track.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
And the counterpoint is that NCTV also allows us to disambig. "by country", and there's no compelling reason not to do so in the case of the Australian 1988 program. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
That's not a counterpoint to what I said, which is that 1986 and 1988 are not too similar for disambiguation, or we would not use dates in disambiguation. The counterpoint to the fact that it's permissible to disambig by country is that's we're not required to; in a case like, it's not WP:CONSISTENT, nor is there a good rationale for the inconsistency.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's clear that you think that "all by year" is always preferable to a mix of "by year" and "by country" disambig. , but no policy or guideline requires that, and in general we should disambiguate using that which is most likely to be searched by readers looking for a topic – in this case, I am confident that readers looking for the Australian Compass series are far more likely to actually find the article (in one-click) if we disambiguate it by "Australian TV program" than by "1988 TV program". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
This isn't about what I think, it's about what we actually do with titles and disambiguation. If you want to make a case that by-year disambiguation is faulty, on the theory that 1986 and 1988 are "too close", then that's an RfC you should open at WT:Disambiguation. I agree that readers probably know the country more than the year, which is why I suggested "Compass (Canadian YYYY TV series)" – it's a bit less WP:CONCISE but more WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and the latter is the more important criterion. It would also serve WP:CONSISTENCY interests by not veering between geographical and non-geographical disambiguation styles. It will also work fine with the others being "Compass (Country TV series)" or "Compass (YYYY TV series)". I.e., it seems like a win-win to me, and I said "doing them all by date might be simpler" (emphasis added) for a reason. I won't argue further in either direction about it, I'm just tossing "Compass (Canadian YYYY TV series)" in as a viable option.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd oppose that, exactly on WP:CONCISE grounds – we don't "double disambiguate" unless absolutely necessary (though I have no prejudice against creating redirects at said locations, obviously...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Move to Compass (Australian TV program), Compass (1965 Canadian TV program), and Compass (1988 Canadian TV program). The runs of the 86/88 to present shows is too close to rely on year alone. Most readers will want to find these by their national region primarily, so disambiguate all 3 by that, with the two Canadian ones using year to distinguish further. A mix solution of only year for some and only country for others is a recipe for confusion. -- Netoholic @ 04:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, no "double disambiguation" is necessary here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
And again, your interpretation of so-called "double disambiguation" has not been widely accepted. We're here to aid readers, WP:CONCISE is the lowest-priority WP:CRITERIA, and in this case, all 3 article must include country identification to best aid readers. CONCISE is great, where confusion can be minimized, and here using years does not offer readers or editors a clear enough distinction because of the overlapping timeframe between the 86/88-to-present Australian and Canadian programs. -- Netoholic @ 04:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Except that every time you've floated it, no one has gone for it, so I would say that your way on "double diambiguation" has "not been widely accepted". Further SMcCandlish is correct – if you're going to do it, it only makes sense to do it as "country year" in this case, not as "year country" – if you do "year country" there is in fact zero advantage to doing that over just "year". But as SMcCandlish shows up above, only "by year" disambiguation is necessary in this case (so, no, "all 3 article[s] must include country identification" is in fact not correct) – the only question is whether it's better to put the Australian series at "by country" or "by year" disambiguation – on that question, you and I actually agree. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

What problem, exactly, are we trying to avoid with a (1986… and (1988… disambig? They all have hatnotes and clear opening sentences, don’t they? The only issue I can think of would be trying to find them by typing “Compass” into Wikipedia’s search, and I’m not sure how big of a consideration that ts. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple problems to solve here:
  1. Compass (TV program) is insufficiently disambiguated (WP:INCDAB - i.e. there are multiple TV programs with this title, and we don't do "primary subtopic" disambig. on Wikipedia, and finally the Australian TV show is in no way "special" enough to merit this anyway).
  2. Compass (Canadian TV series) is insufficiently diambiguated (there are two Canadian TV shows with this title, and we don't do "primary sub(sub)topic" disambig. on Wikipedia – again, WP:INCDAB). Also, it's a "TV program", not a "TV series" (i.e. with "continuing story elements") as per WP:NCTV.
  3. Compass (CBC TV series) is both incorrectly disamibguated (we have deprecated disambiguating "by network" as it's too obscure for most readers) and insufficiently diambiguated (not only are there two Canadian TV shows with this title, but they're both "CBC" TV shows!). Also, it's a "TV program", not a "TV series" (i.e. with "continuing story elements") as per WP:NCTV.
So, no – the current arrangement is completely unacceptable, as all the articles are insufficiently and incorrectly diambiguated currently. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, from my personal view point on this, which is not backed by guidelines nor is it WP:CONCISE, is that if we look at en.wiki from a global perspective, disambiguating by year only is never helpful, as people tend to associate articles with their experience first, or in case when you know there is bias then towards that bias (don't have proof or evidence, just a gut feeling from an editor and reader from a non-English speaking country). However disambiguating by country is much more helpful as it focuses me on the target with much more precision right away. Now when there are situations, like the above, where a TV show is shared by the same country so year should be used, my personal preference would be to use a double disambiguation. As an example: If I see Compass (1986 TV program) and Compass (1988 TV program) I might not know what series I want as my memory won't always remember the exact year, but it will still remember the general area. In this case, both seem plausible. However if the alternative was Compass (Australian TV program) and Compass (Canadian TV program), I'd know right away which one I'm after. With the double disambiguation option Compass (1988 Australian TV program), Compass (1965 Canadian TV program), and Compass (1986 Canadian TV program), I'd still know right away which one I'm after. Just to clarify, I'm not suggestion a guideline change, nor am I doing such name changes. Just sharing my opinion. --Gonnym (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you create those as redirects. Every time this discussion comes up, people ignore the purpose of redirects – you can create redirects with any sort of unnecessary disambiguation you want! But you don't put the articles themselves at unnecessary disambiguation – we do not "preemptively" or "unnecessarily" disambiguate article titles on Wikipedia (WP:CONCISE). Based on this discussion, Compass (Australian TV program) is clearly the best option for that one (definitely better than just "the year", though that one should certainly be a redirect). The two Canadian TV series will need to be at Compass (1965 TV program) and Compass (1986 TV program), because that's the "best" minimum disambiguation option.. Also, Compass (Canadian TV series)/Compass (Canadian TV program) would point back to the disambig. page, so, at worst, that's a "two-click solution" for confused readers. But nothing is preventing anyone from creating any "supplementary" redirects that they think are necessary to aid in reader navigation Similarly, that's also why we use hatnotes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, I disagree that "disambiguating 'by year' only is never helpful" – while people may not be able to remember exact years, they usually can remember decades – based on that, something like 1965 vs. 1986 will certainly do the trick in a lot of cases. The only time "by year" becomes a serious issue is when you have TV shows within a few years of each other – e.g. Happy Families (1985 TV series) vs. Happy Families (1989 TV series). But, really, what other choice is there?! Neither Happy Families (1985 UK TV series)/Happy Families (1989 UK TV series) nor Happy Families (UK 1985 TV series)/Happy Families (UK 1989 TV series) is going to improve that situation one iota... Again, that's basically why we have hatnotes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
65 vs 86 does indeed make it easy. You know what makes it easier? Canada vs Australia. One name I have to think about it a few seconds, the other I know right away. For your Happy Families example, iI agree that those two examples aren't that helpful even with year and country, however if you had another one from 1987 from a different country, then only year would be even worse. Also, redirects do not help in search results nor do they help in disambiguation pages where you'd have the the current title and not the redirect and because that won't be enough to help readers, you'll probably have an additional line of text saying "Compass (1965 TV program), a Canadian new TV program", but this is where WP:CONCISE loses me. Is the title here to serve the website or serve the readers? As a reader, I'll gladly give away a bit of concise for clarity. Also, as an editor, the "less clear" name will be the one shown in categories, so even as an editor, I'll have to enter the article in question to see if its relevant for whatever I'm doing. Actually it seems the only thing saving WP:CONCISE are the redirects. --Gonnym (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
"Also, redirects do not help in search results..." Not true! They do – you just have to type enough. For example: typing "Deception" into the search box isn't enough, but try typing "Deception (2" into the search box, and lo an behold! the requisite articles and redirects (with one exception – for some reason, Deception (2018 U.S. TV series) isn't listed...) pop up. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
We were talking about different search result UI, I was referring to the one that is a stand alone page. When there are too many results in the drop down menu (like in your example), I go for the stand alone page as then I can get the snippet and actually see which one I was looking for (as the results in the drop-down were unhelpful). Also, from using your example, Deception (2018 TV series) redirect from Deception (2018 U.S. TV series) did not show up in the results. I have no idea what goes on under the hood, but I'd wager that the results give priority to the actual page name over a redirect, so because there were so many results for "Deception (2", the redirect for this show didn't show. --Gonnym (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I think search box results are based on page views (rankings) only. However, the more you type, the more you narrow the search and allow even low-page view articles and redirects to pop up. So, I'm guessing that the Deception (2018 U.S. TV series) redirect got basically no page views before I hit it today... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense. That does mean that the page named used will probably get more hits and that does mean that redirects don't solve all problems. Deception (2018 U.S. TV series) only appears when I typed in "deception (2018 u", which at that point, is pointless. --Gonnym (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The point of every RM should be to determine a title for an article (to the best of our knowledge) which is very unlikely to require another RM in the future. Using year alone for these doesn't accomplish that because it doesn't inform the users and editors enough. Yes, redirects are nice, but they are not a substitute for clear and natural disambiguation in the first place. Its also a circular argument, since we could also say the same thing - that year-only titles would be better suited to be redirects after we move the Canadian articles to year/country titles. -- Netoholic @ 02:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn’t realize I phrased my question so poorly. What I was trying to ask was:
What problem is solved by avoiding the use of 1986/1988 to disambiguate? Is it purely a search problem (and is it that big a priority to optimize article titles for searching)? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
As Gonnym states above, in general, it's probably better to differentiate "by country" whenever possible, rather than "by year", as the former will be more recognizable to the general readership. So, in this case, if we could, taking these two articles to Compass (Canadian TV program) and Compass (Australian TV program), respectively, would be preferred. But, as there are two separate Canadian TV programs with this title, the former is not an option for the 1986 program... However, some editors do prefer "consistent disambiguation format" for a set like this, and so will advocate that Compass (1965 TV program), Compass (1986 TV program), and Compass (1988 TV program) would be the best solution here. Which system is better will probably have to be hashed out in a WP:RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks. And there’s certainly something to be said for consistency, but a number of editors have also been saying the latter titles are more concise—and I disagree with that. Concise doesn’t mean short; it’s about information density, and naming the country arguably conveys a great deal more (recognizable) information—is more concise—than the year. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Updating the guideline to reflect proper usage of Year and Country disambiguation

There has been more and more discussions popping up recently about the subject of double disambiguation - Year and Country - with the basic arguments being WP:PRECISE vs WP:CONCISE. The guideline only very briefly mentions this option, without explaining when it should be used, causing this circular debate.

From the guideline: When there are two or more television productions of the same type and name, use one of the following methods: Prefix the country of broadcast [examples removed for brevity]; Prefix the year of release or program debut [examples removed for brevity]; If the year, country, or a combination of both is still insufficient to disambiguate the topic [...].

I propose that this section be updated to reflect the proper usage, whichever it may be decided, and list it a proper example in-line with the country and year options. The discussions so far have shown two things, that this is not an edge case situation and that two, that this is not a "case by case" situation, as the arguments are always the exact same arguments in each of the discussions. --Gonnym (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Late Show vs. The Late Show

Late Show vs. The Late Show: Is this enough disambiguation from each other under WP:SMALLDETAILS?... Discuss.

(I'm asking this, because this issue needs to be resolved first, before the Late Show/The Late Show pile up of misnamed articles (see: The Late Show) can be tackled...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Late Show (CBS TV series)#Requested move 22 August 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Late Show (CBS TV series)#Requested move 22 August 2018. A requested move based on this discussion has now been initiated. Please feel free to comment at the RM discussion there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Foreign Exchange (CNBC World)#Requested move 14 August 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Foreign Exchange (CNBC World)#Requested move 14 August 2018. This seems to be a case where disambiguation "by network" is the only option. So a look by the NCTV regulars will be welcome. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Episodes 1 and 2 (Inhumans)/GA1#Article title

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Episodes 1 and 2 (Inhumans)/GA1#Article title. This article is currently undergoing a GA review, and discussion is being held regarding the suitability of the title chosen for the article given the complicated nature of the article's scope. A few suggestions have been made already, but more eyes and opinions are more than welcome! - adamstom97 (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Consistent naming for split-episode articles

Do we need a guide for consistent naming for split-episode articles? For example, for the first article, we have:

Then for the present article, we have:

Then there's splits based on the different production eras/years:

But then we also have some cases where an asterisks is used, with in-article no explanation for it:

As this is becoming a common occurrence, I think we need to implement some sort of guide on the naming. -- AlexTW 04:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that I have put in a requested move on the Frontline articles: Talk:List of Frontline (PBS) episodes#Requested move 25 September 2018, so hopefully those will be moved to move conventional article titles. Also, another example is:
In general, I don't think we need to add anything very specific on this to NCTV. (We may want to add something about splitting extra-long LoE articles to MOS:TV though, if it's not there already...)
It is worth noting that in most cases "LoE split disambiguation" should be done "by season/series", there are instances where "by year" will actually be preferable – I think the Doctor Who examples are one such case, and U.S. daytime soap operas would be another. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
One other thing – I don't like how the Frontline and Survivor LoE articles handle this: IMO, they should be split, for example, "seasons 1–20" and "seasons 21–present", not "seasons 1–20", and then the "more recent" seasons at just the LoE "base title" article. IMO, the latter should be converted to a WP:DABPAGE to the "seasons 1–20" and "season 21–present" LoE articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that and supported the RM. I think only a line or two would be necessary; articles not including the current season (i.e. split of earlier seasons) should mostly disambiguate with "(seasons X–Y)", definitely not asterisks (I opened an RM for those two cases as well), and that articles including the current season should mostly disambiguate with "(seasons Z–present)" (I'm leaning far more forward this as well; List of Doctor Who episodes is also a disambiguation page), not "–current". I agree with the some cases being split by year being more preferable, just an extra line about that too. Wouldn't hurt just to cover it briefly. -- AlexTW 05:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: IMO, they should be split, for example, "seasons 1–20" and "seasons 21–present", not "seasons 1–20", and then the "more recent" seasons at just the LoE "base title" article. - This was addressed at the List of The Simpsons episodes* RM. They are not separate articles per se. List of The Simpsons episodes* was created as a cache page for the LoE page. This issue requires familiarity with how transclusion actually works (not how people think it works) and the post expand include size, both of which are misunderstood by most editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand what that has to do with anything – you transclude "seasons 1–20" to the "LoE (seasons 1–20)" article, you transclude "seasons 21–present" to the "LoE (seasons 21–present)", and you turn the base LoE articles into a WP:DABPAGE (not into a redirect, as done at List of Pokémon episodes). This has nothing to do with "transclusion size", and everything with how these pages should be organized. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
What you're ignoring is that there is a fairly basic and quite unavoidable problem in that we can only make articles so large (<2MB) and some articles are exceeding the limit. This is all about working with that limit so as to best present these articles to our readers. We can't just work with the articles as we normally do because of a limit that is forced on us. We shouldn't be forcing our readers to go to more pages than they have to, which is what you're proposing. Why make readers have to work with three pages when they can work with two? If what you're suggesting was a good idea then it would be the norm. It's not. We try to list the episodes, without summaries, on one page. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and there's a super easy "fix" to that problem – rather that covering 20 seasons at List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20), cover just 15 and call it List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–15). That solves the "transclusion" size problem easily. This is not a problem that requires some kind of weird, non-standard solution. And this is not a particular "burden" on our readership, and pretending it is doesn't make it so. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
You're demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the issue here. Your proposal is completely unnecessary and doesn't in any way fix anything. The problem is not with the first 20 seasons, nor is it with the current size of this article as I've fixed this for now. Instead it is with the latest seasons that will cause List of The Simpsons episodes that will break. Moving seasons 16-20 to the article will break the article more quickly. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
And you're not getting it – see below: the problem is what you're trying to do. You need to stop doing it, and have these be true "article splits" (like the Pokemon LoE pages are). Your very "solution" is the problem – it's trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Do proper article "splits" with these, and then simply list to both LoE "subpages" from the main TV series article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need to have three articles instead of two, which forces readers to navigate through more articles than they need to. The situation has been working perfectly at articles that have been split for the past 2.5 years and there is no need to alter this. The only real problem we have is the occasional person who is "asterisk-phobic". --AussieLegend (✉) 07:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
And there is no point on forcing two articles that are "connected" instead of just having three articles. Three articles seems to be working perfectly fine for List of Saturday Night Live episodes (seasons 1–15), etc. One extra article isn't such a massive hassle as it's being made out to be. {{Episode list/sublist}} was working perfectly fine for years before we decided to update the usage of its first parameter from page-transcluded-to to page-transcluded-from. -- AlexTW 07:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Rewording what we've said, I generated this (bit longer than I expected):

When episode list articles exceed the post-expand include size due to too many episodes being listed or transcluded, they should be split into separate articles. Articles not including the current season (i.e. splits of earlier seasons) should disambiguate with (seasons X–Y). Articles including the current season should disambiguate with (seasons Z–present). The article without any season disambiguation in its title should be a disambiguation page listing all split articles. {{List has been split}} should be used in each article, succeeding or preceding the listed episodes. Instances where disambiguation by year is more preferable (for example, Doctor Who and U.S. daytime soap operas) should be discussed on each article's talk page.

This could be included at either Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Episode listing or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#List articles. -- AlexTW 05:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with using "(seasons Z–present)". There are technical reasons for not doing this which are addressed at the various RMs currently underway. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I read your comment at Talk:List of Casualty episodes*#Requested move 30 September 2018 but could not understand why specifically the asterisk saves the page. Is it because then the name doesn't need to change as the asterisk doesn't limit the scope? List of Casualty episodes* and List of Casualty episodes are very confusing and make it impossible to know which one is for what seasons. I find it unbelievably hard to imagine that this is the only or best solution. Regarding the proposal, I'm all in favor in adding it to the naming conventions, as I'll repeat myself from previous discussions, there is no reason not to add to the guideline a naming convention that keeps coming back and forces us to repeat the same arguments over and over. I have to say though, that the only reason Doctor Who is using years and not seasons, is because the editors for that page are ignoring all other guidelines - seriously, "series" and "season" mean the same exact thing. --Gonnym (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
When transcluding, the length of the title of the page being transcluded has an effect on the size of the page being transcluded to, as does the total size of the article being transcluded, but it doesn't seem to be a linear effect. For example, when I fixed List of The Simpsons episodes after List of The Simpsons episodes* was moved, the increase in size was not directly related to the number of bytes that I edited, it was more. Changing 20bytes at The Simpsons (season 1) increased the size of List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) by more than 20 bytes and the size of List of The Simpsons episodes by more again. However, it wasn't consistent across all articles.
List of Casualty episodes* and List of Casualty episodes are very confusing and make it impossible to know which one is for what seasons - Whether or not you understand why it is the case, List of Casualty episodes* is not a separate article to List of Casualty episodes. It's a cache of the latter, a sub-page if you want. List of Casualty episodes is the LoE page for the series. List of Casualty episodes* is only a page that you have to look at because of the post expand include size limit. It's not directly a child of List of Casualty episodes nor is it a parent of the season articles. An analogy would be the case where Tom, a single father, has 20 children and has employed a nanny to look after the first 15. The nanny is not a parent, she's just a "child manager" for Tom who only manages the children. If you want to deal with the children you go to Tom. Tom = List of Casualty episodes while the nanny = List of Casualty episodes*. You don't need to know which children the nanny List of Casualty episodes* manages because Tom List of Casualty episodes tells you that. There is only one |list_episodes= in {{Infobox television}} and, forCasualty, that points to List of Casualty episodes, not List of Casualty episodes*. This is the way all TV series work (or should), except for those where the episodes are all in the main article.
As far as the asterisk and scope go, what is contained in List of Casualty episodes* is variable. Ideally, all episodes would be listed at List of Casualty episodes but we can't do that so we had to move some seasons (ideally as few as necessary) to List of Casualty episodes*. For fairly simple reasons we decided to use base 10 and put 20 seasons in the article. This is a compromise between keeping as many seasons in the main LoE page and keeping some headroom so that further moves don't have to be done every year. At this time, as far as I am aware, we don't have any series that have so many articles that we need 3 pages so we're future-proofed for several years. That said, List of Casualty episodes is currently 1,960,539/2,097,152 bytes while List of Casualty episodes* is 1,439,172/2,097,152 bytes so we may need to move some seasons after series 35. With the current naming, i.e. using the asterisk, neither page needs to be moved. However, if some of The Simpsons seasons needed to be relocated List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) would need to be moved.
I find it unbelievably hard to imagine that this is the only or best solution. - Several others have been discussed in the past. Using the asterisks minimises the amount of effort needed to maintain the articles. Essentially, new seasons only need to be pasted into List of Casualty episodes*. All other work is done at List of Casualty episodes and automatically transcluded to List of Casualty episodes*. List of Casualty episodes* has required no edits in the past 2 years other than removing an unnecessary template that was recently added. Based on my experience over the past more than 2.5 years with the problem this seems the best solution. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course List of Casualty episodes* does not require edits. It is a basically complete set, in which I mean that it will always (if page size limit stays the same) be seasons 1 to 20. But the same can be said for that article with any other title (such as seasons 1 - 20). Also, Calling it a sub-page is just semantics really. A READER wanting to read the article for seasons 1 to 20 won't be able to read it at List of Casualty episodes as it just does not exist there. If the change over at The Simpsons survived the apocalypse, then this really is a non-issue. (As a side note, if really the issue with the page is that it's transcluding too much useless data and the software does not have "smarter" options, then the best solution is a real sub page at the season level - so The Simpsons (season 1)/episodes which would then be transcluded to both the season page and the list page. Yes, that will require watching another page, but it will decrease the size significantly and allow the list pages to be merged.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 12:32, 30 September, 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is another one of those examples where "editors are supposed to serve template editors", and not the other way around. The asterisk thing serves neither readers nor editors, and is not a necessary solution to this problem. We should be adhering to naming conventions. If there is some other technical issue, that should be more widely discussed, and a solution crafted that works within the naming guidelines... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course List of Casualty episodes* does not require edits. It is a basically complete set, in which I mean that it will always (if page size limit stays the same) be seasons 1 to 20. - That's not what I meant. List of Casualty episodes* doesn't have separate menus or references sections, or even a series overview table. Almost all content including the lede, TOC, series overview table, notes, references, navboxes and even categories are transcluded from List of Casualty episodes using labelled section transclusion. This is completely different to standard LoE pages where only the episode tables are transcluded. The page is only 3kB in size while its post expand include size is 1,432kB. And no, it won't always be seasons 1 to 20. When List of Casualty episodes breaks the post expand include size again, the plan is to move more content as is necessary to List of Casualty episodes*. Again, we don't want our readers to have to navigate through more pages than is necessary.
A READER wanting to read the article for seasons 1 to 20 won't be able to read it at List of Casualty episodes as it just does not exist there. - This is the case for any series. The articles for seasons are all elsewhere. That's not an issue. The pages, as they are now, are set to provide linking to the appropriate sections as necessary. If a reader wants to look at the list for series 3 while they're looking at List of Casualty episodes they'll be taken to the correct spot on List of Casualty episodes*. If they want to go to series 32 while they're looking at List of Casualty episodes* they'll be taken to the correct spot on List of Casualty episodes. They'll be sent to the correct spot on the correct page regardless of which page they're looking at.
if really the issue with the page is that it's transcluding too much useless data and the software does not have "smarter" options, then the best solution is a real sub page at the season level - so The Simpsons (season 1)/episodes which would then be transcluded to both the season page and the list page. - I don't see that as necessary at all, or desirable for that matter. It would require a lot more effort when creating season pages, totally different to what we do now. The present situation is far simpler. It requires minimal editing of season pages. Your suggestion would be a major change to the way we work.
this is another one of those examples where "editors are supposed to serve template editors", and not the other way around - Not at all. It has nothing to do with templates. It's all about working around a deficiency in the software that really only affects TV articles.
We should be adhering to naming conventions. - There is no relevant naming convention here. We do have to work within the limits of the Wikimedia software. We don't have a choice there. It's not something that we can fix. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Using an asterisk is totally non-standard – point me to anywhere in WP:AT where that's mentioned as being kosher. And we do have an easy choice here – I said it up-page: makes the "transclusion chunks" smaller by limiting the number of seasons we cover in the "LoE subpages". There is nothing that says we have to cram 20 seasons into one of these pages, 15 seasons, 12, or even 10 seasons is quite adequate... If this is a "deficiency with the software", then let's come up with the best solution to that, not an ersatz, back-of-the-envelope "solution" like this "asterisk" thing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Making the LoE subpages smaller doesn't fix anything because the chunks still add up on the main LoE page. If anything, what you're suggesting will make things worse as you still have to have enough LoE subpages to cover all episodes. Reducing the size of the article title is still critical which is why "*" (1 character) is better than " seasons (1-xx)" (15 characters) is better. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
No, you're still not getting it – there should not be a "main LoE page" in these case – the latter should be converted to a WP:DABPAGE. This eliminates the entire problem. IOW, these should be "true article splits", not this transclusion mess nonsense... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll use your style of commenting, as you seem to be just ignoring the parts that don't fit with your argument.
List of Casualty episodes* is not a separate article to List of Casualty episodes and That's not what I meant. List of Casualty episodes* doesn't have separate menus or references sections, or even a series overview table and Again, we don't want our readers to have to navigate through more pages than is necessary - first, lets both be clear we are using the same terminology as this discussion can't move on if we both call one thing differntly. List of Casualty episodes* and List of Casualty episodes are two different articles to a reader and will show up as two different search results.
List of Casualty episodes* is only a page that you have to look at because of the post expand include size limit and A READER wanting to read the article for seasons 1 to 20 won't be able to read it at List of Casualty episodes as it just does not exist there. [mine] - This is the case for any series - so decide, is this a place a reader goes to or not? If a reader goes to this page, then they should understand what this page is.
Almost all content including the lede, TOC, series overview table, notes, references, navboxes and even categories are transcluded from List of Casualty episodes using labelled section transclusion - I know, which is horrible and which I agreed with an editor that tried changing it here.
The problem is not with the first 20 seasons, nor is it with the current size of this article as I've fixed this for now. Instead it is with the latest seasons that will cause List of The Simpsons episodes that will break. Moving seasons 16-20 to the article will break the article more quickly - this is because the way you are "fixing" it is flawed. Once you create an ok range which reaches the limit, you don't just continue on adding seasons just to break it. If adding 16-20 will break the current one, then the Simpsons will need a 3rd article. I've never understood the concern about how our poor old users will need to actively click one more mouse click. Also, the only this needs this kind of fix is because you prefer this way. Again, my solution works and will let you have all seasons in one list, but you prefer this way, which is cool, but then don't try and blame your fix on technical limitations.
I don't see that as necessary at all, or desirable for that matter. It would require a lot more effort when creating season pages, totally different to what we do now. The present situation is far simpler. It requires minimal editing of season pages. Your suggestion would be a major change to the way we work. - you don't. Which again, is cool, but then don't blame your bad fix on technical limitations. Also, my solution does not require a lot more effort when creating season pages - it does require more effort in that you click another "create article" and link the transclude. So that's what? 30 seconds more? I guess our definitions of effort vary. Thinking about this a bit more, I'm not sure those 30 seconds are even close to the amount of time it takes you to manage the page limit each time.
There is no relevant naming convention here. We do have to work within the limits of the Wikimedia software. We don't have a choice there. It's not something that we can fix. and of course, lastly, still not addressing the point of conflict - why is the asterisk the only option? --Gonnym (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes – this reads like one of those situations where a small number of technically-minded editors came up with what they thought was a "good solution", but is regarded to not be a "good solution" when a larger pool of uninvolved editors takes a look at the situation... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No, you're still not getting it – there should not be a "main LoE page" in these case – the latter should be converted to a WP:DABPAGE. This eliminates the entire problem. - Let's get it clear. The only thing that is the problem is that you don't like the asterisk. The LoE page works fine and looks like every other TV LoE with only minor changes, just like every other LoE page. Your suggestion doesn't fix anything. Instead it makes the poor reader have to navigate through multiple pages instead of doing it from one. We should be aiming to make the reader's experience the same across the project. You'd probably like to make your two LoE pages different, with no transclusion, which is bound to lead to duplication errors. Transclusion is used with series overview tables and season articles specifically to eliminate these issues.
  • List of Casualty episodes* and List of Casualty episodes are two different articles to a reader - However, techncially they are not. The pages have been setup so moves between articles should be transparent, as I've already explained.
  • so decide, is this a place a reader goes to or not? If a reader goes to this page, then they should understand what this page is. - First stop for the reader should always be List of Casualty episodes. If they click on series 3 they will be taken to List of Casualty episodes* without needing to understand why or how it happens. When they click on series 30 they will be taken to List of Casualty episodes as already explained. List of Casualty episodes* is simply an extension to List of Casualty episodes created to get around the post expand include size limit. I've already explained this.
  • I know, which is horrible - It's only horrible because you don't understand it. At one stage, people thought transclusion was horrible and instead duplicated content resulting in multiple articles that were not in sync with each other. The series overview table in the main series article was often different to the one in the LoE page and episode tables in season articles were also different to the LoE page. Transclusion fixed that. LST is simply an extension to the simple transclusion that we generally use. It allows us to be more specific in what is transcluded. We could actually use it all the time but there isn't really a need.
  • I agreed with an editor that tried changing it here. - Looking at the discussion I see that AlexTheWhovian disagreed with you for quite valid reasons.
  • Once you create an ok range which reaches the limit, you don't just continue on adding seasons just to break it. If adding 16-20 will break the current one, then the Simpsons will need a 3rd article. - This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the process because that's not what we do. The post expand include size limit is 2MB. When the LoE page breaks we don't create a new page by moving 2MB over to it. We pick the minimum number of seasons to move across, as I have already explained to you, in order to stop the LoE page breaking. With The Simpsons, the article containing seasons 1-20 is only at 83% of the maximum size. The LoE page is only at 57% so it has a long way to go before we'd need to move any more content out of it. There's probably a good 8 years before we have to look at doing that. So far, no TV series has come close to needing 3 pages so I really don't see your point.
  • I've never understood the concern about how our poor old users will need to actively click one more mouse click. - It's not just one mouse click. That's a gross over-simplification. If you're trying to navigate between episodes those clicks all add up and if you're navigating between seasons you're either going to have to open multiple browser tabs or lose your place. The smaller the number of pages that a reader has to navigate the better.
  • Also, the only this needs this kind of fix is because you prefer this way. - No, we've tried multiple ways of implementing fixes, including removal of as many templates as could be removed (even some that shouldn't - they all contribute) and, after TWO YEARS at List of The Simpsons episodes, this was found to be the best way.
  • my solution works and will let you have all seasons in one list - I'm sorry but what exactly was your proposal? Regardless, you can't have all of the seasons in one list. This is what we normally do and several pages have broken precisely because some series can't have all episodes in one list.
  • don't try and blame your fix on technical limitations. - WP:IDHT? The technical limitations are there and we have to work around them. If it wasn't for the technical limitations we wouldn't have had to implement a fix.
  • it does require more effort in that you click another "create article" and link the transclude. - I'm sorry but I'm still not understanding what your proposal actually is. What do you mean by "link the transclude"?
  • and of course, lastly, still not addressing the point of conflict - why is the asterisk the only option? - And again, I didn't say it was the only option. I said it was the best option, based on over 2.5 years of practical involvement with this problem. I've also explained why it's the best, although really it could be any single character.
  • a larger pool of uninvolved editors - Those editors being people who obviously don't understand the technical issues. Gonnym's comments demonstrate this. There are a number of questions for which answers have already been provided. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


AussieLegend's explanation of technical limitations makes no sense to me; I agree with the multiple other editors who support not using that setup. Using hacks to work around the 2MB page-size limit are bound to fail and should be avoided; I still don't see how the asterisk is better than any other page name for transclusions. Occasional page moves (on the order of one per decade) are not at all problematic, and certainly don't justify using confusing page names to avoid (series 21-present) constructions. The concept of "subpages" is very intentionally not used in article space. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What part of my explanation don't you understand? The edits are not at all "hacks". They are normal edits using documented procedures that have been available in the Wikimedia software for a long time. If they were bound to fail as you suggest they would have failed in the past 2.5 years, but they haven't. You are correct that we don't use subpages in article space (that was a suggestion by Gonnym.[4]) but these aren't actually subpages. It's hard to give them an actual name because they are not really addressed anywhere, probably because nobody considered that we'd have articles so large that they break the 2MB limit. They're simply an extension to the LoE page, setup so to the reader it acts as part of the main LoE page. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand: 1) why asterisks are supposed to be better than any other naming scheme; 2) why there is a need to have dozens of seasons on a single page in the first place. Based on your talk about "caching"; it seems like there was a hack to use {{subst}}s and multiple levels of templates to avoid hitting the transclusion limits; I don't understand any of that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I've already explained above that it doesn't have to be an asterisk and that any single character will do. The aim here is to reduce the transcluded content and the length of the article title is a part of that.
it seems like there was a hack to use substs and multiple levels of templates to avoid hitting the transclusion limits; I don't understand any of that. - I don't understand it either because that wasn't done. Where did you get that from? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The latest update was definitely a hack. Invoking modules in the mainspace? Who's grand idea was that? -- AlexTW 13:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with invoking modules directly. That was a recommendation from WP:VPT. Using templates is just a convenient way of invoking modules but there are drawbacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Rebooting the discussion

Wow, what a wall of text above. I'm the guy who engineered this unique solution that AussieLegend is so adamantly defending. While the technical issues that led me to do this have mostly been fixed, so there isn't really a strong technical rationale for this solution as there was when I implemented it on List of the Simpsons episodes in February 2016, there is still a logical argument for keeping it. I'll explain point-by-point.

  • The asterisk is intended to point to a note – typographical devices such as the asterisk (*) or dagger (†) may be used to point to footnotes; the traditional order of these symbols in English calls for using an * first. I don't know why I didn't think of superscripting the asterisk using DISPLAYTITLE and putting the explanation immediately below the title in a hatnote sooner, but the light bulb turned on in my head this morning, so please look at the top of List of Casualty episodes* again and let me know whether that makes it sufficiently clear to readers. Feel free to tweak the text of the hatnote if there's a better way to say it. I suppose a three-way split could use the dagger (†), but there's currently no need for that. Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask) is a title that includes a footnote.
  • This convention better conforms to the conciseness criterion – the title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. There is only one subject here; it's just a subject that's been split to two pages. There is a complete and identical overview of the subject in List of Casualty episodes* § Series overview which is found on both pages, and enables seamless navigation between pages. Those who are religious hardliners about doing "full and proper" content splits will need to also split the series overview section – or move it to the "disambiguation" page. Otherwise, half of the overview is off topic.
  • Speaking of "disambiguation", List of Doctor Who episodes is not a valid disambiguation; I changed it to be a set index because it's a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name. It's a list of subsets of the list of episodes. This set index could be expanded to become a broad-concept article by moving the series overview section to that page.
  • A generic title like this allows the specific number of series included on the page to be changed, without the need to move the page.
  • There were two technical issues that using an asterisk helped to solve, that were both fixed by changing the syntax in {{episode list/sublist}} in May 2017. I'm not familiar with the details of that change, or the reasons for it, but whether it was intended to make article splits easier or that was just a nice side effect doesn't really matter. Before that change, the title of the sub-article was hard-coded into the template parameters, so:
    1. Any split or adjustment to the split required changing the specific title specified by this parameter to the new title. This change had to be made in several different articles, and made simultaneously, or as quickly as possible, to avoid breaking things. Using a generic title (with an *) avoided the need to make so many changes at once to tweak a split.
    2. The problem we were trying to solve was bumping into the limit on the number of allowed transcluded characters, and because these titles were specified many, many times, each of which was transcluded, a longer title using more characters like List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) just exacerbated the problem, while a shorter title like List of The Simpsons episodes* transcluded fewer characters.
  • I took List of Holby City episodes and List of Frontline (U.S. TV program) episodes off the list of split articles, at least for now. It's quite possible that both of these will need to be split again in the future. If you look at the source code for {{Episode list/sublist}} you'll see that it's simply {{#invoke:Episode list|sublist}}, so replacing {{Episode list/sublist}} with {{#invoke:Episode list|sublist}} in the source code of the episode articles avoids transcluding a lot of content, which both renders the page more efficiently for our readers and allows these lists to grow larger before a split becomes necessary.

Apparently we can track split episode-lists by watching Pages that transclude Template:List has been split. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Five episode lists have been split: {{List has been split}} (also at least one "Japanese list", which uses different templates)

The last one, Doctor Who, has a natural splitting point.

I think that covers everything. Let me know if there's something I neglected to cover or that needs further explanation. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I still see no reason to leave List of Casualty episodes* at that title – the other 4 examples all properly follow WP:NCTV, so that one should as well. The asterisk thing, no matter its intent, is totally non-standard, and basically unclear to boot. Remember, while WP:CONCISE is a criteria, WP:RECOGNIZABLE is as well, and the "asterisk" solution fails the latter IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see where WP:NCTV addresses this issue. Presumably we would look to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) § List articles for guidance, but nothing there specifies "(seasons 1–20)" or "(YYYY–YYYY)" or anything of the sort. So I think all of the options on the table are reasonable. If we roundly dismissed all new ideas as "totally non-standard" that would close the door on the possibility of developing new standards. I think the point of this page is supposed to be to discuss standards, including an openness to the potential for new conventions. Are you telling me that you have taken a second look at the top of List of Casualty episodes*, which I changed earlier today, and you still are confused by it? Have you never seen asterisks used to point to footnotes in books? So you don't recognize the use of asterisks for that purpose? wbm1058 (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see where WP:NCTV addresses this issue. And that is precisely why I started this very discussion, to gain some sort of standard on naming techniques for splits. I see the asterisks note, I still disagree with it. The articles should be full article splits named properly, not just some technical attempt. For what it's worth, I also disagree with the replacing of {{Episode list/sublist}} with {{#invoke:Episode list|sublist}}. -- AlexTW 02:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone disagrees with opening a discussion, which is something I tried to do in 2016, but wbm1058's point was that we should put all options out there. We shouldn't disagree with something just because we don't like it. I don't like it either but we have had technical limitations forced on us so we're forced to work with them and this idea was suggested at WP:VPT. Regardless of how you feel about invoking modules directly, it has had the effect of reducing the page size by 400kB, or roughly 20% of the maximum size and has allowed us to minimise the amount of information that we've had to relocate. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
First of all, I appreciate you both taking your time to attempt to fix the page limit problem and for replying here. Also, thank you for finally giving us an answer as to why the asterisk was the only option. Having said that, I really don't think there is a problem here at all. For some reason, a concern has been raised that if a user will need to click one more link something bad would happen. Readers are used to that. Interested in seasons 1? Need to click The Simpsons (season 1). Now you want to move to season 2? That's another click. A reader reading a book or even an ebook changes pages all the time. There is nothing inherently special about a List of Episodes that says they all must be in the same page. They aren't even all in the same table, which could have been an argument for keeping them together (so to enable sorting). So they share this small connection of being part of something bigger, but that's really just it. So for me personally, I don't have a problem with these lists being cut-off at a certain point, without needing any special code to prevent us from reaching the page limit. A generic title like this allows the specific number of series included on the page to be changed, without the need to move the page. - This also seems to me unneeded. Just decide that 1 page is until a certain season and never add more. No need to keep increasing until reaching the very end of the limit. The argument about this actually being 1 page with a "Seamless" connection is also wrong. When I first encountered this page I had a bad experience as I was logically scrolling to reach a certain point as I thought I'm in the same page, but then noticed that I was in a different page and the scroll bar on the side represented something completely different. These are two pages. They act as two pages and they look like two pages. Even if the content is transluded. --Gonnym (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I never said an asterisk was the only option. It was simply the solution that I boldly determined, in my judgement, was the best option at the time I implemented it. I think my solution was actually pretty good, in that it wasn't reverted and significant time passed before anyone objected to it at all, I don't recall exactly but I think several months passed before anyone objected to the use of the asterisk. And, other than that one aspect of it, I think the framework of the solution I implemented, including the use of labeled section transclusion, remains in place today. So overall, it was a good solution, which, with the one exception being the asterisk, hasn't been controversial. I later considered whether using an invisible character instead of the asterisk would have been better. If I had it to do over again, I would boldly do it that way. In fact, I'm still open to the idea of moving it to a name with an invisible character embedded in it, so that the title appears identical to the main article's title and readers can't see any difference. After all, both articles cover the same topic, while managing to avoid being complete forks. They're just "partial forks". Regarding "one more click", I guess you've never seen how heated some WP:Primary topic debates can get, with some strongly objecting to the "one more click" readers will need to make when they land on a disambiguation page rather than their preferred "primary topic". In the case of split TV series lists, I think it's correct that the "primary topic" is the most recent seasons in the series. Right, one can make 30 clicks to sequentially step through all the seasons, but I think the point of the overall list page is to briefly cover them all in one page, except for all but the longest-running shows. I don't follow what you mean by "They aren't even all in the same table" – I specifically pointed out just above that List of Casualty episodes* § Series overview includes all of the series... and that section is "forked" onto both sub-lists. wbm1058 (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
To quote: Wow, what a wall of text above. And as for I later considered whether using an invisible character instead of the asterisk would have been better - good Lord, this would have been even worse. Two (apparently) identical titles, editors unable to determine the correct one for the "cache" list and the most recent list, not being able to link it properly from their keyboard, all so readers can't see any difference, which just supports the idea that it would make it worse for editors and readers alike. I can guarantee that that would be a speedy objection. -- AlexTW 03:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I might try it sometime, and see how many weeks it takes for anyone to notice ;) I'll also point out that the table of contents on List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) includes seasons 21–30, which are out-of-scope given the title of the article. While I think that's fine and allows readers to easily jump between pages if they wish to, what I'm hearing is that we should do a "complete and proper split" and remove those seasons from the table of contents. wbm1058 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, do let us know, so we can revert it straight away as controversial (which you already knew) ;) Proper and complete splits for the content; not the series overview, which is meant to display the series as a whole (hence the name), and the ToC. -- AlexTW 04:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I've actually been in many debates recently about primary topics with my own personal feeling each time being "why have -any- primary topic in most cases", but yes, I know this is a contentious area for most - that said, that still isn't a -good- reason. What I meant about them not being in the same table, is exactly that - each season's episodes are in their own table but on the same article. But being on the same article doesn't give any other benift. Being in the same table would have at least allowed sorting (if that was even a valid use), so I could understand that. --Gonnym (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Wbm1058 is quite correct. Content that is out of scope for the article should be removed. Only content directly relevant to the article should be in it. For an article titled "seasons 1-20" only links for seasons 1-20 should be included. That includes the series overview. The series overview should only be complete on the "List of <Foo> episodes" page, not on subpages created as a part of the split. If it's going to be a "complete and proper split" it has to be a "complete and proper split", not something that is done half-arsed. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree and disagree. Out of scope content should be removed, yes. Splitting the overview, no; the series overview should reflect the whole series, hence the name. See List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) - separate lead content (for the most part, bar the first sentence), transcluded series overview. Doesn't seem to be an issue with it. -- AlexTW 14:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The series overview on a subpage should only list seasons mentioned on that page. It's essentially just an extension of the lead in that it summarises the episodes on that page. We've always specifically linked within the series overview table only to sections on the page, not to external articles because of this. If we're going to put a complete list of all seasons then why not link to individual season articles? The answer is that the season articles aren't part of the page. I'm not saying that the list shouldn't be complete on the "List of <Foo> episodes" page (I've actually specifically said it should be) or in the main series article, but it shouldn't be complete on subpages. Subpages don't cover the whole series, they cover only certain seasons, so they shouldn't contain a whole series overview. This is what happens when you split an episode list, which is why we try to keep it all together as one page. For the record, I disagree with the complete listing in the Doctor Who subpages. The complete series overview table should be complete on List of Doctor Who episodes and that should be possible using transclusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Some WP:RMs to take a look at...

I'd appreciate it if more eyes from WP:NCTV could take a look at Talk:New Year's Eve Live (CNN program)#Requested move 27 September 2018 and Talk:NFL GameDay (NFL Network show)#Requested move 27 September 2018 as these two could use more participants. Similarly, Talk:CNN Newsroom (CNNI)#Requested move 2 October 2018 has had no responses yet. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

To follow up, while the first two of these are now resolved, Talk:CNN Newsroom (CNNI)#Requested move 2 October 2018 could definitely use more opinions, as there is a massive logjam of different options presented there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Space / Time

Thoughts on the title for Space / Time? It was originally located at Space and Time (Doctor Who) in 2011, but I'm not sure either title is the best for the article. -- AlexTW 01:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, best course of action here would be to move/revert to the previous title, and then hold a "formal" WP:RM to see if there's consensus for a better title... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but which title? I feel against both titles, so I'm not sure what one to suggest in an actual RM. -- AlexTW 12:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
In terms of the RM, you may have to go with "?" if you can't suggest a better one. On my end, I don't really have a suggestion either – Space and Time (Doctor Who) is, I think, less than optimal, but I don't have a better idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Combing two different titles in one article will usually result in a less than optimal title (and infobox, plot summary and other sections), but if that is the route the article has chosen to take, then there really is no other way to describe it. --Gonnym (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

TV Plays

How would you disambiguate a TV play article (that needs disambiguation):

  1. (TV play)
  2. (film)
  3. Other: please explain

The guideline doesn't cover this but there are enough articles on this subject that at least one discussion should cover this. --Gonnym (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said at my Talk page, I feel that disambiguating these with "(film)" under WP:NCTV is sufficient. Note, also, that there is a requested move on this subject, currently – Talk:Love from a Stranger (1938 TV play)#Requested move 14 October 2018. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I think its awkward to consider any live presentation as a "film" and I know of no definition in WP:NCTV or WP:NCFILM which allows such. I'm thinking that (TV program) should be used, but I suppose we'd have to view individual cases and see what the references ultimately classify them as. -- Netoholic @ 16:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Except that, as I pointed out at the WP:RM, The Rocky Horror Picture Show: Let's Do the Time Warp Again is pretty much the same kind of thing, and it's described as a "television film"... But, while I prefer "film" for these, I can live with "TV program"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Was that film a live preference? I can't see any mention of it in the article. I can live with TV program, but I also don't object to creating a new entry to the guideline for TV Play. --Gonnym (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm... I thought it was, but it looks like it may not have been. I'm having trouble remember the "live" ones – Grease: Live was, and there were other recent "live" musicals, but I can't remember which ones were which... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The other recent "live" musicals all seem to be described as "TV specials" in their articles (sources don't even seem to call them that, simply calling them "productions"...), but that would definitely be inappropriate in the case of these 1938 and 1947 productions. So I don't have any clear answers here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The Rocky Horror Picture Show: Let's Do the Time Warp Again wasn't live - "The first 25 minutes of the film were screened at San Diego Comic-Con". Fortunately for us, most live versions of these like A Christmas Story Live! include the word "Live" in the title, so I'm not aware of any which have naming conflicts. -- Netoholic @ 16:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
There are quite a few TV Plays from the 50s-70s with naming conflicts. Most of those can be considered episodes of their respective series, yet almost all of the leads of such articles start with "x is a television play". Some articles that have naming conflicts: Underground (1958 TV play), The Paradise Suite (Armchair Theatre), Fable (TV play), Robin Redbreast (TV play), Alma Mater (play), Traitor (TV drama), Horace (television play), Hard Labour (film), Leeds United (BBC play), Funny Farm (play), Double Dare (play), The Imitation Game (play) and Scum (television play). --Gonnym (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, where applicable, those should be considered "episodes" of their respective anthology TV shows. (And so should be named as such...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't exactly speak for British usage, but "television play" is a term that's very rarely used at all in a North American context anymore — while it was certainly used in the early days of television, when a lot more drama programs were anthologies of one-off episodes that could reasonably be termed as (and in fact often were straight adaptations of) plays, in contemporary usage virtually all similar pieces of television programming would be termed as either television films or television specials rather than television plays. (And even with the current Fargo-Feud-American Horror Story-True Detective revival of anthology series, the model that currently predominates isn't standalone episodes in the Twilight Zone mode, but extended story arcs that unfold over a whole season and then reset to a new story with a new cast next season instead of next episode — so "television play" isn't even used for the current spate of anthologies.) So yeah, I'd agree that as a rule, we should preference "film", "special" or "episode", rather than "play", as the term for most television content that requires disambiguation. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    • For me the main focus though is for those adaptations from the 50s-70s that are called television plays (live adaptations) and not Fargo or True detective which as far as I know aren't disputed. --Gonnym (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I think this is being over-thought. Can these be referred to as "television plays" in the article's prose? Sure, esp. if contemporary WP:RSs also referred to them as such. But that's not what this discussion is about – this discussion is simply, "How should we disambiguate these articles for the purposes of Wikipedia article titles?" And, in that context, we want to keep it the disambiguation scheme simple as possible, keeping the number of "standard" disambigutors to as few as possible. In that context, disambiguating these as "films" (i.e. "TV films" as per WP:NCTV) is the simplest possible solution. No prejudice against anyone who wants to create "TV play" redirects. But, for simply disambiguating, we should keep this as simple as possible, and "(film)" works just fine for these, as Bearcat says above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguating something as "(film)" and calling it a "television play" in the lead is just wrong. If it isn't a film, there really is no reason to call it a film... --Gonnym (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
It functions as the equivalent of a "TV film". Again, redirect can handle anyone that might actually type in "TV play" expecting it to be disambiguated that way. But Bearcat is correct – "TV play" is basically an "archaic term" now, and we should not disambiguate articles using an archaic term. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement that we restrict disambiguations to suggestions explicitly listed at the relevant guideline. TV play is a thing on WP. That's more than adequate for us to use it, and it's the most appropriate and accurate term. We should not be misleading users by referring to these TV plays as films. --В²C ☎ 17:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it's archaic. It should not be used. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with using archaic terms in disambiguation when appropriate. See The Entertainer (rag), for example. --В²C ☎ 19:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem is in determining when it is appropriate, because there's no clearcut definition of the distinction between a TV play and a TV film or special. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@Bearcat: I don't think it's that hard. We have a few options - a) what sources call them, b) how they were made and presented. Regarding point b, there is a huge distinction between a TV film and a TV play - the first is shot, usually more than 1 day, later edited and aired on a different day (Hard Labour (film)), while the later is shot and aired as it goes (live). As an example see Underground (1958 TV play) where the actor died mid play and they had to change stuff during the commercials. A TV special might be similar to point b, but I'd like to see an example of an article that there is a confusing if it's a TV special or a play. To go a little bit more into this, television play describes the format as which is a live drama performance broadcast from the television studio or, later, put on the tape. but later says The term "television play" is a partial misnomer. Although the earliest works were marked by television drama drawing on its theatrical roots, with live performances telecast from the television studio, a shift towards shooting on film occurred in the late 1970s, utilising techniques and working methods common in the cinema, but use of the term has persisted and reading the article on Play for Today and looking into some of its entries, it seems that these "plays" are actually films, as they are not shot and aired live. Edna, the Inebriate Woman was shot in November and December 1970 and aired on on 21 October 1971. In this situation, in my opionion, we shouldn't follow what the original sources say. If the "play" is a film, then it's a film. No need to keep this mistake alive. Inside the article it could be mentioned that at the time it was known as a TV play. Now regardless to this all, there is another issue, which is raised in the discussion below this, these TV plays/films are part of a series, so these should probably be disambiguated with the series name. --Gonnym (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Removing line about writing "U.S. with periods"

Do we still need this line which is currently in the guideline: "Important: Write U.S. with periods, but write UK without periods (full stops) as per WP:NCA" in the Additional disambiguation section. While MOS:US once said to use only U.S., it no longer does. Both US and U.S. are acceptable, provided they are used consistently within an article. Do the naming conventions here really need to favour one over the other? -- Whats new?(talk) 22:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Strong oppose to any change here – starting with WP:CONSISTENCY, but ultimately this is an WP:ENGVAR issue that people just need to leave alone. There is no problem doing UK without "periods" and "U.S." with. If people ever have a major problem with this, then we should simply do what WP:NCFILM does, and go to "British" and "American". But, again, that is massively more trouble than it's worth to change at this point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Carveouts on local pages when global guidelines have changed aren't cool. --Izno (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily suggesting changing existing article titles which have "U.S.", but removing the line in the guideline insisting this is the only way it may be written (with the word "Important" bolded and italicised no less!), when that conflicts with a MOS -- Whats new?(talk) 02:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
MOS:US says that both U.S. and US are acceptable so this should not override that. Keeping the line as is will essentially force all TV articles to use U.S. regardless of what the MOS says and that is not acceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
For the naming convention that is appropriate. We should not go to a situation where half the articles use "US" and half use "U.S." in their titles – that is an absolutely awful idea, even worse than switching them all to "US" IMO. Again, if this is becoming an issue, I'll start pushing for a permanent change to use "American" and "British" instead, which is actually inline with WP:NCFILM and how we handle pretty much every other country aside from these two (and would be consistent with WP:COMMONALITY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:NCA notes that "[t]he abbreviations are preferred over United States and United Kingdom, for brevity" so I don't think moving to American/British is a solution, when obvious acronyms exist -- Whats new?(talk) 05:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
This is a WP-wide issue and subject-specific guidance does need to align with the current MoS. What's new and others above have a point that the current wording doesn't really work. In particular the MoS stresses not using a mix of abbreviations with and without periods in the same article. Given the number of media related articles that refer to countries on this basis a standard approach of non-period abbreviations would be more convenient for editors and readers. MapReader (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Not an American so probably biased towards the "I don't care either way" group, but I do agree with IJBall that having articles listed with both (US TV series) and (U.S. TV series) is just awful and should follow WP:CONSISTENCY (policy). So for me, whatever is chosen should be the style used for all US articles. --Gonnym (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course switching to "American" and "British" is a solution – frankly, NCTV is the one wildly out-of-step with all other naming conventions in using "U.S." and "UK". It's not just WP:NCFILM – biographical articles widely use "American" and "British" (e.g. "American politician", "British actor", etc.) in disambiguation. If we're going to change this, then let's do it right, and eliminate the out-of-step use of "U.S." and "UK" by NCTV entirely. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Both US and U.S. are already widely used for biographical pages, probably more so than the adjectives, so that horse has already bolted and we already have a mess. Since US, punctuated or not, is also used as a noun, the adjectival solution is only a partial one. The end state is surely adoption of unpunctuated US as the standard, which is the way the world is going (and indeed already is, outside the US, with a trend away from U.S. underway inside - for example by CNN). Until Wikipedia gets there, these debates will recur relentlessly. MapReader (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, "debates" which switching to use of "American" instead will permanently forestall. We might as well make the jump now. WP:CONCISE is only one of the criteria, the others being WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:CONSISTENCY, and I think "American" and "British" is far better for the latter two, especially "consistency" as "American" and "British" are widely used for the disambiguation of other articles and we in NCTV spell out every other country's adjectival name, so I have no idea why we should treat the United States and the United Kingdom any differently. AFAIC, there's no downside to it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Well as I said earlier, WP:NCA prefers abbreviations, and that is the article the line in question refers to. Both US and UK are very recognisable. Moving to "American" and "British" not only goes against WP:NCA, but calls into question what to do with other countries, for example, the UAE. I just don't see the case for a subject-specific guideline to insist on the use of U.S. when a MOS clearly states either are acceptable, and as others have pointed out, this guideline insists the usage of the punctuated U.S. should be the sole usage despite its decline in usage compared to the unpunctuated US -- Whats new?(talk) 01:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is not relevant... no one who has a decent command of the English language will look at Name of series (US TV series) and not be able to recognize it or understand it. One could argue WP:CONSISTENCY applies only to the actual title and not the disambiguator but that is possibly stretching. The thing is, switching to "American" and "British" is not really appropriate for an international audience because "American" often only means "United States" to English-speaking folks... much of South/Central America takes issue with the adjective being used to refer solely to the US and so that wouldn't actually be a move towards WP:COMMONALITY.

Of course what really needs to happen is that very stubborn people from the US who cling to requiring full points for their country's acronym need to embrace WP:COMMONALITY, accept the shift away from using them (even in their own country), honour the fact Wikipedia is not a US-based project, and get on board with MOS:ABBR. I find it pretty appalling that there's a US-specific exception to MOS:ABBR but there you go, so far it stands. They're still not metric, either, so what can you do?

With MOS:US as it currently stands, it makes sense to keep the country-based disambiguator for television series from the United States as "(U.S. TV series)", but the wording explaining this should definitely be changed. Maybe something like:

When disambiguating by country, "(U.S. TV series)" is used for programs from the United States for reasons of consistency and as allowed by MOS:US; e.g. The Magicians (U.S. TV series). All other country-based disambiguation where the country is commonly referred to by an acronym should follow MOS:ABBR and avoid the use of full points; e.g. Queer as Folk (UK TV series).

Definitely the bolded and italicized "Important:" label needs to be dropped, however, as total overkill because I can assure you that if anyone makes the "mistake" of using "(US TV series)" as the disambiguator for the actual article page in the current climate, that will get "fixed" very quickly. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, switching to "American" and "British" is not really appropriate for an international audience because "American" often only means "United States" to English-speaking folks... much of South/Central America takes issue with the adjective being used to refer solely to the US and so that wouldn't actually be a move towards WP:COMMONALITY. Except every other WP/NC except this one is using "American" and "British" to disambiguate (including WP:BLPs). (And it's still listed at List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations, which people around here keep sending me too, so there's no claim that it's not "official".) So that argument utterly fails. Face it: WP:NCTV is the only naming convention guideline that is stubbornly, and unreasonably, sticking it use of abbreviations for the United States and the United Kingdom as disambiguators. Pretty much literally nobody else around here is doing that, so it's this project that's out of step on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The Case of the Restless Redhead (Perry Mason)

The Case of the Restless Redhead (Perry Mason) is unnecessary disambiguation, yes? – This should be at The Case of the Restless Redhead, correct?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

UAE as a disambiguator

If you have a minute, I would appreciate comments on Talk:Studio One (UAE TV program)#Requested move 3 November 2018. Thank you. --Gonnym (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Anthology of films with identical "episode" names (Hallmark Hall of Fame)

(Context: IJBall added one of the relevant articles to a maint. category)

Hallmark Hall of Fame is the "longest-running primetime series in the history of television" (1951–). Its episodes are films, often original productions of plays. This presents us with an edge case for the naming conventions, exemplified by these two episodes:

Episode 4.13 can't be Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) because that conflicts with episode 10.2. Episode 10.2 is strictly speaking misnamed, because it's an episode of a TV series and should be at Episode name (series name), but that conflicts with 4.2. In other words, I've concluded—much to my, and apparently also IJBall's, surprise—that the current name for 4.2 is actually the most correct one; albeit for a case not directly covered by these naming conventions (use Episode name (series name) plus dab using year if needed).

I don't really care a whole lot about what name/dab to use for these, but I rather feel it should be consistent; so I'm hoping those who do work in this area of the project could pick through the issue and come up with a consistent way to deal with this. Keep in mind that List of Hallmark Hall of Fame episodes has a hodgepodge of article names (and excessive redlinks, and EGGy link targets) that will probably need cleanup to match the guideline afterwards (and may or may not bear on the discussion).

Oh, and if someone could ping the relevant WikiProjects about this discussion I'd appreciate it. I'm not really sure whether this is WP:TV, WP:Film, or WP:DAB (or either or none or others or…). --Xover (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Xover: As I said on Gonnym's talk page, my preferred solution here would have been a move to Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame). But as there are two articles that this would apply to, that is out as a "solution". So the next preferred solution IMO is to go back to an arrangement of Macbeth (1954 film) and Macbeth (1960 American film). No matter what, Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954) looks to me to be incorrect under NCTV (I think it would correctly be Macbeth (1954 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode)(?)...), and needs to be moved to something else. FTR, when that comes, I was planning on doing this through a public WP:RM, so that everyone could comment on their thoughts as to the best solution here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: I land on calling these "(film)" being wrong: the mere fact that they're part of a TV series precludes that. Your argument that Hallmark Hall of Fame is a little unusual as TV series goes has merit, but I don't find it persuasive (at least not in isolation). Which means NCTV doesn't cover this, but its closest matching approach is Episode name (series name) except that it doesn't cover the edge case that applies here unless we adduce an additonal disambiguation using the year. Not that I would actually oppose a conclusion that Hallmark Hall of Fame is special enough that the usual TV series naming conventions don't apply (provided the arguments for hold water of course), but I don't see that so far.
But I am, though, opposed to resolving this piecemeal through RM: this needs to get handled as an overall issue somewhere prominent (like here + pings to relevant WikiProjects). The two above articles have (iirc) ping-pong'ed through multiple names over the years because editors have looked at the issue in isolation. Whatever gets decided here should apply to all episodes of Hallmark Hall of Fame and to all episodes of similar cases (where strong reasons and specific guidelines otherwise do not exist).
Also, pinging Gonnym and Serial Number 54129 for more eyeballs. --Xover (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The first thing we need to determine is whether these are episodes produced specifically for an anthology series or whether they are films produced separately and just aired later under a banner. Anthology episodes (where the production teams continue episode to episode) are never "films", although their outward characteristics may seem similar. Treat these exactly like other episodes in other series. In this case, it seems like the Macbeths are indeed anthology episodes (same director, returning cast members, created specifically for HHoF). We can resolve the extra ambiguity with Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame, 1954) and Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame, 1960) (see A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1959) and A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1985) for precedent). -- Netoholic @ 09:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The specific example you gave is not titled as your usage of it seems (to me) to represent. The 1959 and 1985 years are not the years the episodes debuted, but the years of the revived TV show debuts, while the Macbeth years are the years of the episode debuts. So we have two different issues here - two episodes from the same series sharing a name and two episodes from two different series, with the same name, sharing a name. --Gonnym (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Right, its a different reason (episodes in two separate series named the same vs two episodes named the same in the same series), but the same solution is available to us. In the case of the Hallmark Macbeth's, I suggest we use the same format, but use the release year of the episodes. -- Netoholic @ 06:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Just to get your complete view on this, what would you do with The Twilight Zone example you gave? --Gonnym (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
And also, just to spice this conversation a bit more, Alo (Skins series 5) and Alo (Skins series 6) use the season number, while Coronation Street Live (2000 episode) vs Coronation Street Live (2010 episode) use the episode year with the word "episode". --Gonnym (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how helpful or even relevant this is, but it's fairly common (outside Wikipedia) to disambiguate reboots of series using the year; so we have Doctor Who (2005) and Battlestar Galactica (2004) (and even Galactica 1980 where the year disambiguator is built into the official name of the series). Using episode (series year) we'd have an ambiguity in terms of whether the year refers to the episode air date or the series launch (reboot) date. Since Hallmark Hall of Fame seems to actually have season numbers, perhaps that argues in favour of using the series season number rather than one of the applicable years? Whatever we come up with needs to work across all the couple hundred episodes in Hallmark Hall of Fame and all the other applicable cases (I hear Apple have bought a reboot of Amazing Stories for their upcoming streaming service e.g.). --Xover (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
So these would look like Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame season 4) and Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame season 10). That doesn't seem like a bad way to go. -- Netoholic @ 19:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I might be leaning on that style also. Need a bit more to think this through but it's the less ambiguous it seems and can work for any series. @IJBall and Xover: thoughts? --Gonnym (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem with that, in this particular instance, is the concept of "season" is meaningless in the context of Hallmark Hall of Fame. This is akin to the daytime soap opera example we discussed earlier. In the specific case of Hallmark Hall of Fame, year is much more WP:RECOGNIZABLE than "season" (which, again, is pretty meaningless in this specific case). As for the earlier example, I really don't care for the Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame, 1954) format – I really do think it should be something like Macbeth (1954 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you please show how your example would work with A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1959) and A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1985)? (and take into account that these are different series which it needs to note) --Gonnym (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
My preferred solution for those would be A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone episode) and A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone episode) – the fact that they're different "series" actually doesn't really matter: the "by year" disambiguation is sufficient to distinguish them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
If your solution uses the same style for both "year of episode/tv play/film release" and "year of TV series debut" then I'll have to oppose that. A title (including its disambiguation) should be clear what it is. If even an experienced editor will not know what the year means until reading the article then that title fails IMO. --Gonnym (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
People who know The Twilight Zone know that there was a 1950s–1960s series, a 1980s series, and a 2000s series – year is more than good enough for them. Those that don't... well that's what hatnotes are for. You seem to be looking for a "perfect disambiguation solution" which is frankly impossible – this is a case where I'd argue not to let "the perfect be the enemy of the good". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, wait – I think I see what you're saying! Yeah, for episodes, I would actually go with the year they aired – so amend that to A Game of Pool (1961 The Twilight Zone episode) and A Game of Pool (1989 The Twilight Zone episode). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how many Twilight Zones series there have been. The only reason I somewhat know now is because of the research I did into this issue when I encountered it (and I know even less about other shows I barely know). I also don't believe that hatnotes are a valid reason for everything, as it seems they are used in almost every discussion regarding titles. Hatnotes and good titles are not opposites, they are complementary to one another - so even if we had the perfect title, I'd still use a hatnote. I also don't believe that a "perfect disambiguation solution" is impossible - it is available, it just might not be something you like. And as I side before, it's important for a style to not be used for two completely different meanings. As an example of a style that could work is -

Any input/thought/comments on the above? I'm finding more and more examples but can't fix any as we can't agree on a style. There is also always use of double parenthesis which is starting to appear in more articles, such as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) (season 1), which if accepted can be used so an name like A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone) will become A Game of Pool (1959 TV series) (The Twilight Zone) / Tony (UK TV series) (Skins series 1) (which I'm not sure if is better). --Gonnym (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

In the case of The Twilight Zone example, while I still prefer A Game of Pool (1961 The Twilight Zone episode) as the solution, I've thought of a variation that maybe more people will find acceptable: A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone 1961 episode) or Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954 episode) (without a comma). This is closer to the "base" Episode name (series name) system, but adds Episode name (series name YEAR episode) as the format.
For the second issue, I think we may need to go to use of a comma: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series, season 1). I don't love this... but it's better than the "double parenthetical" which I don't think we should ever use. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Interesting fact: Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954 episode) was moved to its current title Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954) in July 2016 Mars Felix who was indef blocked as a sock of Otto4711... There is no way that Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954 episode) isn't a better title than Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954). This may be worth opening a WP:RM over, if anyone here warms to the Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954 episode) titling option. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

@Gonnym, IJBall, and Netoholic: Thanks to all of you for keeping at this! I wonder if we might extract a list of pathological examples and a set of possible naming rules, and then summarize them in a table for easy overview. On that basis we might fruitfully solicit feedback from the TV and Film WikiProjects (or even a community-wide RfC if needed). Something along the lines of:

ID Rule
A Episode name (Series name)
B prefix disambiguator with episode year
C append series launch year to series name in disambiguator
Current name Associated series A A+B A+B+C
Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954) Hallmark Hall of Fame Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) Macbeth (1954 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode) Macbeth (1954 Hallmark Hall of Fame 1951 episode)
Macbeth (1960 American film) Hallmark Hall of Fame Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) Macbeth (1960 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode) Macbeth (1960 Hallmark Hall of Fame 1951 episode)
A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1959) The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone) A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone episode) A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone 1959 episode)
A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1985) The Twilight Zone (1985 TV series) A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone) A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone episode) A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone 1985 episode)
Alo (Skins series 5) Skins (UK TV series) Alo (Skins) Alo (2011 Skins episode) Alo (2011 Skins 2007 episode)
Alo (Skins series 6) Skins (UK TV series) Alo (Skins) Alo (2012 Skins episode) Alo (2012 Skins 2007 episode)
Coronation Street Live (2000 episode) Coronation Street Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street) Coronation Street Live (2000 Coronation Street episode) Coronation Street Live (2000 Coronation Street 1960 episode)
Coronation Street Live (2010 episode) Coronation Street Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street) Coronation Street Live (2010 Coronation Street episode) Coronation Street Live (2010 Coronation Street 1960 episode)
Tony (Skins series 1) Skins (UK TV series) Tony (Skins) Tony (2007 Skins episode) Tony (2007 Skins 2007 episode)
Tony (redlink) Skins (North American TV series) Tony (Skins) Tony (2011 Skins episode) Tony (2011 Skins 2011 episode)

What immediately strikes me looking at the above table is that rule C is never going to make much sense in combination with A+B. At the same time, A+B alone are sufficient to clearly disambiguate the episode. It does fail to disambiguate which series it is associated with, but an argument can certainly be made that that is not required in the article's title (I'm not sure I'd be persuaded by it, but it can certainly be made).

Rule C might be replaced with a rule D that uses some kind of variant of multiple parentheticals—either Episode (dab) (dab) or Episode (ep dab (series dab))—but I can't imagine that ending in anything but insanity.

What are rules D, E, and F that we should add, and in what combinations should we apply them?

Should we adduce that disambiguation is only to be added when article titles are actually ambiguous? And that the same applies to each naming rule? That is, rule B is not applied if rule A alone is sufficient to resolve a naming collision? That might make rule C useful for something again in the table above (it would only kick in in the A+B+C column for The Twilight Zone and Skins episodes). --Xover (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Some technical comments - TV series should use the season number in most cases. There are only very rare exceptions where the year is used instead of season (IJBall has made the argument that soap opera are more known for years than seasons). Similar, TV series from different countries should be disambiguated by country and not year, so Skins should be UK/U.S. and not 2007/2011. The Hallmark examples have each 2 year dates but they should have only one, there is no other series. Twilight Zone have the same year in both examples, but should have different ones (but see previous point of it using season number instead). Coronation Street has 2 year dates, but the 2nd is just wrong and it should have only one anyways. --Gonnym (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. And, yes, the idea was to illustrate one possible approach; not to propose it as the final result. As mentioned at the end there, I think it's probably necessary to operate on a rule that any disambiguation "rule" only gets applied if it is actually needed, not simply for consistency. I.e. that rule C will never (or effectively never) be relevant. Or, put another way, the above table demonstrates that rule C won't really work as it stands.
But two questions: 1) do you think the series name needs to be unambiguous even if the article title as such is already unique, and 2) how would you, where needed, insert a country disambiguator into one of those article titles? --Xover (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm conflicted. On the one hand you have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Season articles saying If there are multiple shows of the same name, include the disambiguation, similar to the above for TV series in the season description, for example, "The Apprentice (U.S. season 1)" and Similar names should continue even if one version of the show has several more seasons than the other;, but then you have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#List articles which says If the main TV series page title was disambiguated from other entertainment properties (e.g. other TV series, films, novels, etc.), related list pages may or may not need to be further disambiguated, depending on whether other list articles exist which then produces ambiguous page names as List of Skins episodes. I personally don't like how the list section's exception was added and believe that all sub-articles of the main article should follow the same style, with maybe only losing the "(TV series)" disambiguation, if it is the only TV series and those articles are TV-centric (like list of episodes). So taking the season wording here, then yes, all episodes should have the same series name as the disambiguation. The problem, none of them are visually pleasing. --Gonnym (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Type Current name A B1 B2 C1 C2
Two episodes with the same name in the same series Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954) Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954 episode) Macbeth (1954 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode) - -
Macbeth (1960 American film) Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1960 episode) Macbeth (1960 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode) - -
Two episodes with the same name in two different series with the same name from the same country A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1959) A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone) A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone episode) - A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone season 3 episode) A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone 1961 episode)
A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1985) A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone) A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone episode) - A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone season 3 episode) A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone 1989 episode)
Two episodes with the same name in the same series (using year) Coronation Street Live (2000 episode) Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street) Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street 2000 episode) - - -
Coronation Street Live (2010 episode) Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street) Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street 2010 episode) - - -
Two episodes with the same name in the same series (using series/season) Alo (Skins series 5) Alo (Skins) Alo (Skins series 5) - Alo (Skins series 5 episode) -
Alo (Skins series 6) Alo (Skins) Alo (Skins series 6) - Alo (Skins series 6 episode) -
Two episodes with the same name in the same series and in two different series with the same name from different countries Tony (Skins series 1) Tony (Skins) Tony (UK Skins episode) - Tony (UK Skins series 1 episode) -
Tony (potential valid redirect) Tony (Skins) Tony (North American Skins episode) - Tony (North American Skins season 1 episode) -

Added the fixes I mentioned and the style I mentioned before. --Gonnym (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Some combination of B1 and C is obviously best here. But I continue to believe that in the case of something like The Twilight Zone we don't need the "debut year of the series" – we only need the "year the episode aired" (e.g. A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone 1961 episode), which is exactly the same format being proposed for the Hallmark Hall of Fame examples) – the latter alone is sufficient disambiguation to distinguish which episode-and-series is referred to, and it is not necessary to muddy that by including the "series debut year" on top of that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I've mistakenly left the Xover's style, so I've left that in and added both that and the one I meant to add in. Twilight Zone should not have a year for episode, that series is known by seasons and should always use seasons. That said, For Twilight Zone, B is really enough to disambiguate between the two.--Gonnym (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
As of said before, you and I have a pretty strong disagreement on this point – for episodes, what matters is when the episode aired, not when the "series debuted". Doing the latter over the former just adds to confusion... Luckily, this probably only applies to The Twilight Zone exceptions, so we can probably come up with a system for all of the rest of these, but we may have to leave those two aside. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I'd argue that a season is a more defining characteristic of when an episode aired, over year. For Soap Opera you made the point that viewers don't use seasons, but for regular serial series? No way is the year more recognizable than season number. --Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, and the "by season" system works for most of the others. But it won't work for Hallmark Hall of Fame (another instance where "season" is meaningless to most viewers/readers), and it won't work for The Twilight Zone as "season #3" will lead to the question "For which version?!" --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Categories

The guideline does not talk about categories but I ran into an issue with category names that should be resolved. From my experience, the category structure of sub-categories follows the one of the parent.

In this scenario, look at the following category tree:

Category Category:Angel (TV series) not found

Notice that all categories continue with the parent style - "Angel (TV series)" except the season categories which are titled "Angel (season #) episodes". To me, the correct style would actually be "Angel (TV series) season # episodes". Thoughts? --Gonnym (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The season articles categories are following the naming convention of the season summary pages, ex. Angel (season 1). -- Netoholic @ 05:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:VIP Brother 1#Requested move 28 November 2018. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 03:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother 2005 (Finland)#Requested move 28 November 2018 . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gran Hermano 1 (Spain)#Requested move 1 December 2018 . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 13:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)/Archive_14&oldid=1045691539"