Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll

I will be looking for anyone who responded to the first poll and feels their contribution was tainted. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not keep doggedly looking for reasons not to do the poll. I favor doing one, as I've stated, so that we can get this absurdly divisive issue behind us. I never even bothered to vote in the last one, given how screwed up it was early on and how the "discussion" deteriorated. And for all of Ned Scott's lengthy analysis about who voted when and with what version of the poll, it kind of proves the opposite point from what he intended. It's impossible for anyone outside the fray to follow, so the whole thing is tainted. Clean poll, clean start, hopefully an early end to this issue. Please. And please, no more posting "you've got to be kidding" messages on my talk page; I'm just arguing for a way to get this silly thing resolved, and I'm not even taking a stance. PKtm 02:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems like everyone's who's involved in the first poll has been notified. So we can stop all the speculative analysis of the last poll and see what everyone who voted in it actually has to say. I responed to the first poll and have no objections to the last poll. --`/aksha 02:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't notice where people from the first poll were notified. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I notified those who "votes" could have been misappropriated. Otherwise active people who would have known what was going on were excluded. While I can appreciate the whole "notify everyone" ideal, Wiknight, I didn't find it pratical for my purposes. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to qualify it with whose "votes" could have been misappropriated. I'm trying to remove all appearance of impropriety and give every support a chance to reverse them. (Completely at random, Percy Snoodle was definitely not contacted.) —Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter if anyone was confused by the poll since the poll isn't being used to determine anything. Jay32183 02:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"I didn't notice where people from the first poll were notified" <<<i was actually referring to you leaving "Tainted poll question" messages on people's talk pages. I assumed all those people were the ones who voted in the first poll. --`/aksha 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I mean I don't see where they were notified before I just did 15 minutes ago. That's why I did it. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted a direct and extremely offensive personal attack in the above post. As I've noted, this has gotten unconscionably ugly, and everyone who read that attack, not to mention any admin who is participating in this travesty, should be ashamed of himself for not having deleted it already and not having taken some action against the poster for such a clear violation of WP precepts. I'm disgusted. -- PKtm 04:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
He has been warned. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's just a little friendly flirtation, guys. Lighten up! Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 05:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have stated my view frequently on this page: avoid unnecessary or preemptive disambiguation. This is in accordance both with general Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and with what I believe to be the previously established consensus on this page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I voted my say already. Asking me to come back, read the new material and change my vote because, as I read it, I must've been illiterate to vote as I did, is insulting. This was a simple poll, I'm smart enough to understand it, and I believe that everyone else was smart enough to 'get it' as well. Now the 'losers' are opposing it on any grounds they can. This entire issue is sore losers making a mess of wikipedia by abusing the 'constantly changing nature' in the hopes that sooner or later they'll 'Survivor' it. outwit, outlast, outbore. I know that some here will say 'you're incivil'. I say, I'm smart enough to read before voting in a poll. ThuranX 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • My vote was correctly counted; my only objection to the first poll (which I stated within the discussion) was that within the numerous changes, the meaning of the original votes was temporarily lost, but was shortly fixed to the original meaning. If clarification of my vote is somehow needed, it was disambiguate only when necessary, and when necessary, use the show name only, unless that too is ambiguous, in which case also add "episode." Shannernanner 06:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to have wasted your time. We're trying to get a new poll going, but someone jumped in and invited people back to restate their opinions, but before we'd actually agreed on wording for the new poll. Once we do have poll wording worked out, which wording everyone agrees with, we'll re-open a formal poll, and invite not just the people who have already participated, but post announcements about the poll in other relevant places as well. --Elonka 06:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this was done to show you that a new poll is completely unnecessary. There's only one question that needs to be answered, and you have failed to answer it everytime I have asked. Why is "insert tv series name here" special? If it isn't special then the well reasoned existing guideline should be followed. All Wikipedia articles should be at the simplest name possible. You have never said anything that would remotely contradict that. You have stated it would be easier for you and that things would be "prettier", but no contradiction. There is only one way to determine a "common sense exception" and that is by a special case. WikiProjects are a unifying thing, they are not supposed to contradict Wikipedia guidelines. Now please, stop grasping at straws by complaining about a poll that doesn't actually matter. Jay32183 06:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, everyone who might feel their opinion has not been considered was contacted; everyone. How can you say there will be a poll when it's been opposed so viamently? Who are you representing when everyone who wants to respond is responding, and not with a call for a new poll? Also, please don't tell people they're wasting their time. Like we keep saying, polling is not the be-all/end-all decider. This, right here, is what's good. Simple posts and expressions of opinions. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We're not some hokey fictional bureaucracy swayed by petitions and signitures. Elonka, this section is a show of real consensus. You said you'd accept a clear, clean consensus when you find one. Here it is. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ace, multiple people have called for a new poll (me, Englishrose, PKtm, Josiah Rowe, PeregrineFisher, MatthewFenton, just off the top of my head). I may be the most vocal of the group, but I am definitely not alone. I am also quite confident of getting new voices into the discussion, once we have a "real" poll opened, rather than the twisted one which ran before. Why are you so against a new poll? Are you genuinely afraid that the result would be different, if it were held in a clean and unbiased manner? I would think that if everyone's so sure of their consensus, they'd agree to a new poll, just to put the matter to rest. But instead, this keeps getting dragged out. Let's agree on wording, open a clean poll, and move forward! --Elonka 09:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Josiah Rowe's latest comment on this issue is "I'm still willing to support another poll if the need for it is shown, but based on the early results from Wknight94's canvassing, I'm not sure that it is". I'd hardly consider that as "calling for a new poll". --`/aksha 09:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
We have lots and lots of proof that the last poll was completely valid. We have the confirms here, and what I presented at #Who voted under what poll format. What we are doing is not deciding anything, but rather, we're trying to convince you that this is what actually happened. We don't actually have to do this, we can all leave the discussion as it is. Consensus has been reached, and now we're just being nice in taking the time in trying to help you to understand that. Personally, I think you know darn well that the poll is valid, and you know that you "lost". You need to let this go. -- Ned Scott 09:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus at all, live with it. You'll find there's plenty of evidence showing the poll was invalid. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
What evidence? Only three (3) editors made a vote while the poll wasn't in it's final form and did not list a supporting vote for "disambig only when necessary". We have people coming here and confirming their votes. I believe only two (2) editors feel the poll was invalid. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "I will be looking for anyone who responded to the first poll and feels their contribution was tainted." - Yes, mine definitely was. The previous poll was a farce with the people who "voted" to suffix only when needed running around moulding the discussion to there liking and also archiving to hide the support for suffix etcetera. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You do realize you are basically saying that you did not oppose "disambig only when necessary"? That is what we are asking. We are directly asking you, Matthew Fenton, did you or did you not vote "oppose" to "disambig only when necessary"? -- Ned Scott 09:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not what wknight is asking at all, it clearly reads:

"I will be looking for anyone who responded to the first poll and feels their contribution was tainted."

So please do not twist my words Ned, also just to clarify for you: I strongly opposed the notion of suffixing only when necessary. - and to clarify further: I strongly support leaving a suffix if a WikiProject determines a consensus to keep the suffix, and/or a series of articles is started with a suffix,a nd if an editor wishes to remove said suffix then they require _consensus_ on a case-by-case basis.. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 10:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Then how was your oppose vote tainted? Was it not counted? (actually, I believe I was the one who restored it after someone else removed it). Your vote was not tainted, it was counted, it was represented in full. If you want to play word games, go ahead, but we both know what is being asked here, and that is to confirm if a vote was or was not properly counted. -- Ned Scott 11:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and, WikiProject Lost has no such consensus in the first place. We've pointed that out too. -- Ned Scott 11:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ned, are you afraid of running a clean poll? Are you afraid that the answer might be different than what you're claiming as consensus? --Elonka 10:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think he's afraid of the same thing I'm afraid of - repeating this over and over until the project-oriented people run out of technicalities or until they get their own way. The point of this section is to show that the first poll was already "clean". —Wknight94 (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not afraid of a new poll, but to give in to your irrational demands is not something we should do. -- Ned Scott 11:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, Elonka, you haven't stated your own personal stand on this yet. IIRC, you voted oppose for always disambiguating. Do you feel your vote got mis-represented on the last poll? --`/aksha 13:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't contact her. This section was an attempt to prove Elonka's assertion that the previous poll was dirty and that people who voted Support were misled by the "tainted poll". If Support people showed up agreeing with Elonka that they were misled by a compromised poll, I would have immediately reversed myself and supported a new poll. That does not appear to be happening though. Contacting Oppose votes and having them show up and say they wanted to change to Support would have actually proven the opposite of Elonka's assertion so I didn't bother doing that. That can also be done if you want to make the first poll weigh even further in the direction of supporting the current guideline though. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It should be obvious from the reactions above that most people weren't misled by the allegedly-tainted poll. It also appears that most people are in agreement on the original guideline, that we should only disambiguate when necessary. Note that I didn't say "all people", but thankfully we don't need unanimity to have a consensus. I really see no reason to drag this out further by starting a new poll, since we can already tell what the outcome would be. And note that we aren't generally in the habit of polling on guidelines in the first place. (Radiant) 15:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Radiant, I have enormous respect for your opinion, because I've seen how hard you work in guideline-related discussions around Wikipedia. But, I must respectfully disagree with you, and hope you'll hear me out as to why we should do a new poll. I have been wanting to invite other people into this discussion. However, when the old poll started becoming a mess, I refrained from extending invitations, because things were getting too chaotic. I would still like to invite some others, but this discussion is such a tangle right now, I'm not even sure where to point people to, when I send an invite. So, what I would like to do, is start a clean poll, with wording that everyone agrees on ahead of time. Then, I (and anyone else) can issue our invitations and point editors at the new poll, where people can weigh in with a single comment, or, if they want, participate more fully in the discussion. If consensus is clear, it'll show up with the poll. Alternatively, I could just start issuing my invitations now, but without a clear "collection point", I'm honestly concerned that it will just further add to the chaos, not to mention discouraging people from participation because of the wall of text. I'm also seeing a disturbing trend here of some editors deliberately adding "nonsense" posts, just as a way of making the page even longer and harder to read. That's another reason that I'd like a clean poll, where anyone who comes in can quickly see a summary of the situation and offer their own opinion. As I've said before, I promise I will abide by the consensus of a clean poll. I'm not trying to drag this out with poll after poll after poll, all I want is one clean and unambiguous version. I think that this is a reasonable thing to ask, and I hope that you'll agree. --Elonka 18:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The interesting thing about most of Elonka's posts here is if you read them out of context, ignore everything else she and others have said previously, what she says seems to make sense. However, if you take the time to keep up, and when you put it in context... In this case, Elonka has come up with yet another new excuse for a new poll: I refrained from extending invitations, because things were getting chaotic. However, Elonka (and others) did extend invitations to the previous poll. Further, she didn't mention this as a reason to explain why we need another poll until now. I, for one, am not buying it. This is very disruptive. --Serge 18:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, if you're referring to me when you say "editors deliberately adding "nonsense" posts, just as a way of making the page even longer and harder to read", you're mischaracterizing my intentions. I have added humorous posts recently, but their only purpose was to lighten the mood and decrease tension on the page. I'm sorry if they've failed to do so in your case. I have no intention of making this page, or this process, any longer and more difficult than it already is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The only good reason for inviting more people to a poll is because not enough showed up to adequately represent the community. But 33 people weighed in with support or oppose. Ask any poll expert and that's a very impressive sampling set - especially on Wikipedia. If you'll agree that no vote stacking was involved, the result of nearly 4-to-1 in support should be more than enough for consensus. Without vote stacking, your continuing to invite people would likely just increase the number of opinions but not change the ratio. It would be 36-10 or 43-12 or something. What's the difference? How is that helping anything? It would make it even louder in here, that's for sure - but wouldn't change the outcome. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Elonka, if you don't mind I have a few questions, because I have some difficulty understanding your position here. First, why do you believe a poll would be necessary to begin with to establish consensus here? Second, why do you believe the first poll is tainted, considering in this section nobody agrees with that position (except for Fenton who seems to be arguing that his oppose-vote was misinterpreted as an oppose-vote)? And third, why do you believe more people need to be invited, considering the issue was listed on RFC (and, IIRC, the village pump as well)? (Radiant) 12:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • My opinion is still Disambiguate only when necessary, regardless of the wording of the poll. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A musical view of the situation...

Wknight94's choice of words in his message sparked a thought that led to something I'm sure I'll regret. But anyway, with apologies to Ed Cobb, Soft Cell, and everyone who reads this page, here it is:

Sometimes I feel I've got to
Run away I've got to
Get away
From the arguments we have on this damn page
The thoughts I've shared
Seem to go nowhere
And we've lost all senses
For we snip and snipe, we can't find consensus

(chorus)
Once I ran to you (I ran)
Now I'll run from you
This tainted poll you've given
I give you all my mind can give you
Take my views and that's not nearly all!
Oh... tainted poll
Tainted poll

Now I know I've got to
Run away I've got to
Get away
The agreement just isn't happening
It's a god damn shame
To name every ep the same
And disambiguate
When the TV names, they don't have no mate

(chorus)
Once I ran to you (I ran)
Now I'll run from you
This tainted poll you've given
I give you all my mind can give you
Take my views and that's not nearly all!
Oh... tainted poll
Tainted poll

Don't vote twice please
Can't we all just shoot the breeze
I've argued so but Elonka says no
Now I'm going to pack my things and go
Tainted poll, tainted poll
Don't vote baby, tainted poll
Tainted poll...

(repeat to fade)

—The preceding unsigned comment song was added by Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:39, 15 November 2006.

I vote for Josiah Rowe as the support act for Wikimania 2007! -- Chuq 04:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
This can become the first spoken sung article talk page --`/aksha 04:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Some much needed humor! :D -- Ned Scott 06:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

LOST

Based on the earlier comment that a majority of Lost episodes need to be disambiguated, I checked the list. Currently there are 13 episodes without disambiguation, and 38 with (Lost). Seven of the 38 don't seem to require disamb, so they could be switched over, making 20 without and 31 with. That's 62%, a majority but not anywhere close to almost all of them. This also means that more of the episodes are following the TV naming guideline than aren't - is there currently some problem or confusion with the current state? I haven't seen it. Getting Lost to follow the guideline would require moving seven of the 51 articles - what disruption would occur if this were to happen? I was also unable to find where the lost wikiproject decided that all episode names for the show should be predisambiguated, could someone point me to that decision? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What's actually being proposed?

I was going to add this to the discussion above, but thought a new section might be cleaner. I've been following this discussion almost since it began, although I haven't commented much. One thing I'm unclear about it is what action is actually being debated? I understand the opinions on both sides, but I'm not sure anymore what's being suggested - a change to the guidelines? Or are people wanting to begin removing disambiguation from the titles of episode articles for Star Trek or Lost (for example), and are waiting until a clearer consensus is reached? There's an awful lot of talk going on, but I'm not clear what would actually happen should some kind of consensus be achieved. --Brian Olsen 20:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The most recent issue as I see it is that we already ran a poll until it ran dry. Then Elonka - who was on the "short side" (Oppose) of the consensus - alleged that the poll was modified too often during its running and has been poisoned. I've asked folks on the Support side to make a trip back and affirm their votes or confirm Elonka's suspicion that they were misrepresented. So far, no one has said they were misrepresented. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I understand that...so is the whole discussion now simply about whether or not to have another poll? What course of action is actually being discussed? So many people seem to feel the matter is settled - so have they already begun moving episode articles to remove the disambiguation from the title? Or would that be a breach of etiquette when a few editors are still so opposed, even though they seem to be in the minority? --Brian Olsen 21:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
There was a proposal to change this guideline, but it seems to have failed. So consensus is to keep it as is, and the process of renaming articles not following the guideline has already started, and I hope it continues. I don't see the absence of unanimous agreement as reason to not enforce a guideline. Most people agree that the decision has been made, but those in the minority keep protesting that it didn't happen. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) what Milo said. Even if I'm supposedly too biased, there are two other admins here that seem to be of the same opinion (at least for the question of whether the poll should be re-started). Enough already... —Wknight94 (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have no idea. I've been in this discussion for quite a while now and i'm afraid i also fail to see what the problem at hand is. We did agree to keep the guildline as it is. We follow guildlines by default, so we've been moving articles. Despite all the "omg it's disruptive", there's so far no complaints or evidence of damage done.
As far as i can see, the point we didn't agree on was whether wikiprojects can decide to 'overturn' the guildline if their project agrees to do things differently. The problem is non-existence, since there exists no wikiprojects who have 'agreement' to overturn the guildline. So i have absolutely no idea what the problem is.
As far as i see, some people are holding a slight grudge and refusing to admit their proposal to change the policy failed to gain support, and are now wanting to go through the entire process all over again. --`/aksha 23:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

From my point of view (and that of several other editors as well), the poll and "consensus-building" were not conducted in a clean manner, and the poll needs to be re-run. As for what's being discussed, what I'm working on is coming up with wording for the new poll that everyone agrees with, so that we can open the poll, post notices about it in appropriate places around Wikipedia, let the poll run for a week or so, and see where we stand. If there's a clear consensus to just enforce WP:DAB, then the guideline here probably doesn't need any changes, and we set up taskforces to go through and move the thousands of articles with suffixes, to non-suffix versions. If there's a consensus to allow exceptions in the case of WikiProjects and other good faith discussions on specific series, then we work on adding "exception" wording to the guideline, and do some minor "cleanup" moving in a few series to make them internally consistent. If we're deadlocked, then we look into some other form of dispute resolution, such as taking this to Arbitration.

As for preferred poll wording, here's my own recommendation right now:

== Poll on article naming ==
On a careful review of current Wikipedia practices, it is clear that in situations where a television series has individual episodes, that in many cases (a few thousand articles), the editors who created the episode articles chose to use a consistent naming system, where a suffix of (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) was added to each article title, even when not specifically required by disambiguation rules. (Examples: Deep Space Nine, Smallville, Stargate)
As this practice has come to light, some editors have noted that this process creates names that are inconsistent with normal Wikipedia disambiguation guidelines, and as such, these editors believe that those thousands of articles with suffixes, that did not specifically require suffixes for disambiguation, should be moved to non-suffix versions in order to be consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions. (Examples: South Park, Babylon 5)
Other editors feel that there's nothing wrong with the practice of consistent suffixes, and that it has various advantages, such as consistency in linking, making category listings look cleaner, and providing helpful context in watchlists. They believe that the Naming Conventions guideline should be updated to indicate that this "allow consistent suffixes" method should be included as an acceptable alternative for article naming. Or in other words, per Wikipedia:Guideline, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"
Other editors feel that the "consistent suffix" method should be generally discouraged, but that it may be warranted as an exception in certain situations. For example, some series have cases where the majority of their episodes already require a suffix for disambiguation reasons, so it might make sense to also add a suffix to the minority of episodes that don't have it, for consistency's sake (Category:Lost episodes). Other series have gone through multiple title changes (such as Star Trek), and those editors have chosen to use a consistent (<abbreviation> episode) system, such as "(TOS episode)" "(DS9 episode)", etc. (see: Category:Star Trek episodes)
=== Poll ===
====Question #1====
When is it appropriate for TV series episode articles to use a suffix (such as (<seriesname> episode)? Should this be reserved strictly for cases where another article already exists by that name (i.e., for disambiguation), or is it acceptable for some series to always use regular suffixes in order to provide for a consistent naming system?" As with an AfD, each editor can answer with an optional one word answer, plus a sentence or two explaining their opinion, such as: "Always - all series should use this system," "Never - suffixes should only be used when absolutely required for disambiguation", "Sometimes - it should be taken on a case by case basis, depending on the needs of that particular series."
==== Question #2====
In cases where a suffix is to be used, is it better to use (<series>), (<series> episode), or to allow other methods (such as the Star Trek abbreviation system), as long as it is consistent throughout that series?

I'd appreciate outside viewpoints as to whether or not the above is a clear summary, with clear and neutral wording on the poll questions. Thanks. --Elonka 23:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this wording is clear enough, and I'd like to (again) encourage that we proceed, so that we can put this matter behind us. I, for one, held off from even voting in the previous "polls", given that the text kept getting changed, so I'd appreciate a chance to indicate my thoughts in this structured format. I can't see that it hurts anyone or anything for us to try to get some closure here, hopefully without the name-calling and even obscenities that have been bandied about on this very minor issue. -- PKtm 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks very good to me , I'd also like to echo that we proceed with this. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Those sound pretty clear to me and eliminate confusion. As I've said before it's important for everyone to be happy with it. However, the main thing is that those planning to vote are happy. I'd suggest those unhappy with the wording make their feelings known now in order to avoid the same problems as before. Englishrose 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"From my point of view (and that of several other editors as well), the poll and "consensus-building" were not conducted in a clean manner" <<<i'd like to point out, that of all the people who voted on the last poll, so far no one has expressed the fact that the poll mis-represented their opinion. (see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)#Looking_for_anyone_who_objects_to_the_last_poll) The poll happened, there was no consensus to change the policy. Pages will get moved. Just deal with it and stop trying to stir up more non-existent problems. --`/aksha 23:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think having a new poll about the matter is a fantastic idea. I'm not too strong on the subject personally, but I love polls, and public opinoin is always changing. Polls help keep the most recent opinion. Besides, why ruin the hard work of editors without a LONG fair discussion? Oggleboppiter 00:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Did you just say that this discussion hasn't been long enough? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think they did. Izhmal (User page | User talk page) 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe that was sarcasm. Never translates well in text. Jay32183 00:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
On whose part? Ogg? I'd hope so. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That was my assumption. Jay32183 01:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It's still not fucking funny. You'd have to be fricken nuts or retarded to even suggest that this discussion's been too short. We've got archives and kb counts that say volumes otherwise. "Longer", he says.. Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 01:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, IF (big) there is to be a new poll (which I oppose due to lack of evidence that any votes were interpreted incorrectly in the last poll), the wording should include new proposed wording for the guideline, not a philosophical question. One option should be status quo - the existing guidelines are fine. The other options should have revised wording suggestions for the guidelines, and then we can vote "preferred" (2 points), "acceptable" (1 point), or "unacceptable" (-1 points). Each voter can vote for only one preferred option and vote "acceptable" or "unacceptable" for all the rest. I would suggest having the poll take place in two parts. In the first part, which lasts a few days, maybe a week, adding new options and revising existing ones is encouraged. There is no limit to the number of options. In the second part, which starts perhaps after there are no additions/revisions for 24 hours, a typical vote, assuming there are 10 options to choose from, might look like this:

preferred: 3; acceptable: 1,5,6,9a. unacceptable: 2,4,7,8,10, 9b. --~~~~

May the most preferred wording win! --Serge 00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very much against any further polling because the discussion showed that the information used by those wanting to change the guideline was factually incorrect and based entirely on misunderstanding Wikipedia guidelines. No amount of polling or arguing will ever change that. Jay32183 00:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the reasons for having a new poll are mostly unfounded. However, one reason to have it is so far unrefuted: to end this ridiculous discussion. While having a new poll does not guarantee the end of this ridiculous discussion, if it continues after the new poll there would clearly be sufficent grounds for disciplinary action. Otherwise, there is no end in sight. In the mean time, the broken episode articles are being fixed... --Serge 00:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Serge that the best reason for having a poll is to get this behind us. I think his proposed numerical system might be confusing, though. Perhaps a less detailed version of what Elonka has suggested would be best. I think, however, that her introduction gives too much unnecessary detail and is biased towards her position. Something like this might be more neutral:
===Poll on article naming===
The general practice for article naming on Wikipedia is for articles to be titled with the simplest form that is not ambiguous with other titles. Parenthetical suffixes are usually used for disambiguation. However, many pages for television episodes have been created with parenthetical suffixes, even though their titles are not ambiguous. Some television program WikiProjects (notably WikiProject Star Trek) have recommended the use of suffixes such as (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) as a general practice; others, such as WikiProject Doctor Who have followed the general guidelines.
Some editors feel that the general disambiguation guidelines should be followed on all television episode articles. Others believe that all television episode articles should have suffixes appended, whether their titles are ambiguous or not. Still others believe that the editors of a particular program should be able to determine what pattern works best for that show.
Elonka's versions of the questions are OK, I suppose, but I'd rather have an introductory paragraph that gives equal weight to all sides of the argument. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would any intro be needed? If you proposed a poll that simply listed the different choices for what you would like the guideline to be, you could explain yourself in the Discussion section below - I might even go along with it:

List of proposed guidelines - please support one:
  1. "Disambiguate only when necessary unless WikiProject consensus is to use a different guideline, etc., etc."
  2. "blah blah blah..."
  3. Leave the guideline the way it currently is
Discussion:
...

That's it. Simple. No room for ambiguity, no room for tampering allegations, etc., etc. If this were done in the first place, maybe we could all be about our lives by now. Instead, everything is phrased in this bizarre could-be-interpreted-14-ways-speak that just leads to chaos.

That being said, I just realized that Josiah Rowe is also an admin - so that makes four admins and counting who think this has gone on way way way too long. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Josiah, overall I like your wording. I'd like to add a couple phrases though. I've included an update here, with my additions in italics:
===Poll on article naming===
The general practice for article naming on Wikipedia is for articles to be titled with the simplest form that is not ambiguous with other titles. Parenthetical suffixes are usually used for disambiguation. However, on a recent review of the situation, it was discovered that many thousands of pages for television episodes have been created with parenthetical suffixes, even though their titles are not ambiguous. Some television program WikiProjects (notably WikiProject Star Trek and WikiProject Stargate) have recommended the use of suffixes such as (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) as a general practice; others, such as WikiProject Doctor Who have followed the general guidelines.
Some editors feel that the general disambiguation guidelines should be followed on all television episode articles, and that the thousands of existing suffix articles are "wrong" and need fixing. Others believe that all television episode articles should have suffixes appended, whether their titles are ambiguous or not. Still others believe that the editors of a particular program, like with a WikiProject, should be able to determine what pattern works best for that show.
How's that? --Elonka 02:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we need to mention "thousands of articles". Has it even been established that there are thousands of articles that would need renaming? We know that many series weren't in compliance, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a preponderance of episode articles for each series would need renaming. Also, remember that many series (such as British television series) have only a handful of episodes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I'd just like to say here and now that I hope you don't give in to Elonka. Doesn't it set a bad example? "Hey, kids, whine and whine, you'll get your way!" Y'know? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You know what, Ace? That's simply ugly, and personal, and uncalled for. Not only you need to review WP:NPA, but so do all of the admins participating here (as Wknight has enumerated for us). Because frankly, every single one of them should have been jumping up and down on you for such blatant incivility. -- PKtm 02:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You know, Izzy Dot is one thing, and I'd agree with you in his case, but this just too much. "Anyone who disagrees with us is incivil. Don't attack me!" Fine, fine. I'll remove myself. Cute tactics, BTW. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Everyone here is getting pretty aggrevated. Jumping up and down at all is a bad idea that will lead to more fighting. And don't complain about the admins reactions when it's only been 18 minutes since the post you're complaining about went up. Jay32183 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Particularly when there have been so many comments that every time the admin tries to post he gets an edit conflict! :^)
These were some of the things I tried to post in the last 20 minutes or so:
(to ACS, edit conflict with PKtm) But it's not just Elonka. She's by far the most vocal supporter of a new poll, but other editors such as Matthew Fenton and PKtm have also expressed dissatisfaction. Sure, there's a bit of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease", but I'm sufficiently confident in the existing consensus that I don't think another poll will change anything — except that it may finally end this interminable debate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
(to PKtm, edit conflict with ACS) PKtm, please stop lecturing us on admin duties. Each Wikipedian has an equal duty to make his or her own judgment on what behavior is unacceptable. I have, for example, rebuked Izzy Dot for his incivil comments. However, I don't think that ACS's comment here was particularly out of line. His description of Elonka's ... persistent argumentation ... is blunt and less than diplomatic, but hardly a personal attack in my judgment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
In a weeks-long discussion that has descended so frequently into the uncivil, with nary a word expressed by the admins involved about the need to stay civil per WP guidelines, I will exercise my right to lecture, thank you. Having you actually defend ACS's patently uncivil comment, accusing another editor of "whine and whine, you'll get your way" (which is hardly the worst of the language that's been hurled around) deserved a lecture on adminship responsibilities, in my view. If you don't view that (and other similar instances) as a personal attack "in your judgment", I feel that your judgment is skewed. -- PKtm 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to confirm that I haven't changed my mind since the last poll that I voted in. --theDemonHog 02:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, i for one, am starting to agree with this "I'd just like to say here and now that I hope you don't give in to Elonka. Doesn't it set a bad example?". A poll is NOT needed. End of story. The issue was resolved through a good LONG, and with the exception of Izzy's comments, CIVIL discussion. The problem is being fixed. I find this entire 'delay tactics' as just being immature. But of course, someone who holds civility and good faith in such high regard, and aspires to be an administrator (and therefore a role-model to other editors) couldn't possibly be doing this on purpose.

So, Elonka, if you have any geunine problems with what's happening here, go and take this up to mediation, or arb, or whereever people go to settle disputes. Here, we've got a job to do - that is, get a lot of articles moved. You're insistence of there being a problem when non exists is not helping, at all. --`/aksha 08:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nada..

Recently I've seen wknight jumping around getting agitated because no one will submit to his "humble self" - I'd just like to remind you that (just like an AfD debate, etcetera) your opinions and decisions mean nada in this discussion as your opinion has been biased and you are personally involved. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 08:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

uhh...let me remind you that this is NOT an article. NPOV goes as far as articles. It dosen't mean people can't have an opinion on talk pages.
especially when we're takling about a talk page of a policy?
HIs opinions in this discussion mean as much as everyone else's opinions. Personally involved? Well of course, who bothers keeping participation in a policy discussion that they're not involved in?
I dont know what kind of history you and wknight have, but i find this kind of "signal out one person and make them look bad" tactic really quite....no, i think i'll stop there before i get a chorus of incivility and NPA complaints. --`/aksha 08:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If you take a minute to read the discussion you will notice he/and primarily him is attempting to proclaim the decision of this conversation. You will also notice I never even mentioned NPOV in articles so I don't know what your on about :-\ MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 08:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i know. I have been reading this discussion for several weeks now and frankly speaking very sick of it.
"attempting to proclaim the decision of this conversation" is exactly what you did here ("definitly a consensus for the suffix"). Regardless of whether trying to "proclaim the decision of this conversation" is good or bad, there's little reason for you to single someone out and critisize their opinions so personally.
You ask for civility from other people (here), but yet don't seem to be very willing in returning it. You know, matthew, a very good way to get civility and respect from other people is to demonstrate some yourself. When you target someone with comments like this, it really doesn't hurt to think what they'll make of it before you post it.
And for the record, many people (myself included) have expressed the belief that this discussion has long since reached the decision of disambiguating only when needed. As you would have probably gathered, seeing all the people who have been helping in moving pages. --`/aksha 09:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And the comment about NPOV was in response to "opinion has been biased". NPOV is the policy that governs neutrality, something which does not apply to people's opinions on talk pages. I believe you are well aware of that. --`/aksha 09:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is this thread supposed to be about? Picking fights one by one now? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No. You trying to decide when the conversation is over when it isn't. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 12:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh come on. Are you bringing up something from a week ago where I was trying to keep some peace? This whole section is completely misguided and uncalled for. For shame. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You said just today: "That being said, I just realized that Josiah Rowe is also an admin - so that makes four admins and counting who think this has gone on way way way too long. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)" — That is what I am talking about, you believing you can call an end to consensus building discussion. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 13:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice job misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. It was just an update to a prior comment of mine where I said myself and two other admins agreed that there is no need for another poll - it turns out myself and three other admins agree. "Elonka has singled me out as being a biased admin - so what about the other three?" - is basically what I'm trying to say. Don't get paranoid and think I'm trying to get heavy handed. I may be leaving that up to a mediator or ArbComm before long though. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why there is not yet a consensus

For the record, this discussion has not been going on for "several weeks", that is a distortion of elapsed time, which several people in this discussion seem to be having since they are posting multiple times per day.

To be clear: the RfC started on October 30 [1], along with a "poll" that was changed rapidly and drastically over the next few days [2], along with a continuation of non-consensus page moves being done in (what I regard as) a highly disruptive manner [3]. A few editors, a couple of which are almost certainly sockpuppets (and one of which, Izzy Dot, is currently blocked), posted rapidly and repeatedly in a very uncivil manner, attacking anyone who disagreed with them, reworking the "poll" to insert their own bias, and harassing other editors outside of this discussion [4]. "Debate" tactics generally involved belittling the opinions of other editors, ridicule, and complaining that if someone hadn't posted within hours, or that if they hadn't personally responded to every single editor's concern, that "they obviously didn't care anymore."[5][6] [7] Any editor who disagreed, was immediately and incorrectly attacked as being "a lone voice."

Over strong objections, a few editors (most notably Wknight94 and Ned Scott, whose incredibly disruptive tactics at the Lost WikiProject resulted in the guidelines page there being protected from editing) started declaring that the debate was "concluded" on November 3rd/4th (remember, the RfC only started on October 30). Much of the debate since that time has involved repeated calls for a new and clean poll,[8][9] while other editors are effectively saying, "We've already made our decision, stop whining." And, as before, the more disruptive editors are posting multiple times per day, making the discussion even harder to follow. When other editors wandered in from other WikiProjects and voiced a concern [10], they were immediately overwhelmed with the "multiple posters", who were incorrectly informing these new voices that the decision had already been made. Any editors with good faith objections were either ignored, accused of bad faith, or labeled as "trolls," "whiners", or "sore losers."[11] And since some of the good faith editors were only posting once every couple days, in comparison to the attackers who were posting multiple times per day, the good faith objections were rapidly drowned out.

We need to give time, and provide a structure, for other editors than just the "multiple posters per day" to offer their opinion. To repeat: I, and several other editors, want a new and clean poll. Not a poll "to confirm the consensus that's already been made," but a clean, "Let's listen to all opinions with an open mind" discussion, which, per Wikipedia:Consensus is how these issues are supposed to be resolved on Wikipedia. We have good faith objections to the current guideline, and they need to be addressed and debated, not just steamrollered in a few days with a claim of a supermajority "vote". --Elonka 18:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus isn't needed to move pages. Until there's a consensus to change this guideline, the guideline stays. Wikipedia can't turn into the wild west every time someone says they're disputing a guideline. Trying to characterize page moves bringing articles into compliance with the guidline as "highly disruptive" seems like empty rhetoric. I'm glad people are moving pages, and I hope it continues. So far, the moves haven't caused any problems I've seen, and have even demonstrated that both the process and the result are painless. Exactly what "disruptive" result has these moves caused? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I will point out that the Guideline did include an exception, for several months, until it was removed by Ned Scott, without consensus for said removal [12] (and he's been causing similar disruption at the Lost WikiProject). I kept replacing it[13][14], he kept removing it [15][16]. I offered to modify the wording [17], and he removed that too, now claiming that consensus was needed to replace what he'd been removing in the first place [18]. Rather than continue to edit war, I moved the discussion to talk. Then the November 3rd "declaration of a finished discussion" occurred. I tried adding the {{disputedpolicy}} template to the page, which was again removed by Ned Scott [19]. Bottom line, I don't believe that it's appropriate to use "that's what the guideline says" as a reason for page moves, when the guideline has clearly been tampered with. --Elonka 20:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I know I said I would excuse myself, but someone's gotta ask; tell me again, what, exactly, is a "good faith objection"? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Once again, if Elonka's words are read out of context, they seem to make sense. If there is an argument to be made against the guideline as it currently stands, please, somebody, state it. What's the problem with the guideline? What problems are caused by adhering to it? Yes, we know some editors have named articles contrary to the guideline. But what's the reason? Consistency within that group of articles? What about consistency within Wikipedia? Why should minor/local consistency trump global/general consistency? Where's the argument? Where is the reasonable basis to oppose the current guideline? Absent such argument, there is nothing to discuss or have a "clean vote" on. --Serge 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka, I think you have a distorted view of the debate thus far. I am not a sock puppet. I do not post multiple times a day. I follow the debate when I can and add my two cents when necessary. Usually, I see people like Josiah Rowe and others being quite civil and bringing up very valid and relevant arguments, so mostly I don't bother increasing the volume of the debate. From the other side, I see you repeatedly shirk the real substantive questions and focus instead on what I and others believe to be irrelevant issues of procedure. In many ways, it's a lot like a fillibuster. If you want to gain some support for your procedural ideas, I would suggest first addressing the many counter-arguments put to you already. -Anþony 22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel like I've grown up a little bit in this discussion. Originally, I'd be really bothered by what Elonka just said, but now it just seems funny. To Ace: Yeah, I keep wondering that too. "Good faith" is not a label you can just apply to anything and make it "good" or better than it really is. For example: "Why would you put me in jail for my good faith killing?", "These good faith insects sure are biting a lot today.", "I have been washing your car in good faith." -- Ned Scott 00:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been content to watch this debate unfold without making any comments, but while I don't necessarily agree with Elonka's position, I don't think she's misusing the term "good faith". Why can't an objection be made in good faith, i.e. with good intentions? If one objects to something and one's intentions(however right or wrong, misguided or not they may be) are to improve Wikipedia, why shouldn't one call it a "good faith objection"? Whether or not one's intentions are actually good is a valid point for debate, but let's not let a perfectly reasonable term get caught in the crossfire... -- Fru1tbat 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Ned. Though Elonka seemed to have ignored me,—I may never know for certain.—I thought it'd be safer/best to ask a question and wait for a response rather than make an accusation. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Look, Fruity, assuming good faith on the part of another when you have little reason to belkeve otherwise is fine. No one's dissing "good faith". However, the uses by Elonka and her associates are misleading. Just take anyway the "faith" for second. What would you think of her just calling things "good"? A "good objection," or a "good exception". That's essentially what we're talking about. Now, you can slap on "faith" or use some other niceity/qualifier, but what have you really got? A proper use of a term or someone's attempt to reinforce their own arguments by playing on the acceptence and appreciate people—you, for example—give/have to such terms? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It also makes the suggestion that our comments, concerns, and actions have not been with good intentions, which is clearly not true. For example, I can fairly say that I removed the Star Trek example in good faith. -- Ned Scott 02:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It does appear that "good faith" was being thrown around inappropriately, and I know this is a heated debate, but the comment I was responding to ("what, exactly, is a 'good faith objection'?") read as attacking the actual term itself, not the context or the intent... -- Fru1tbat 02:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If a claim of good faith was all that's needed to make an action right/acceptable, then Willy on Wheels would be an admin by now for all his "good faith moves". Personally, i've never had much faith in arguments based on assumptions of faith. --`/aksha 06:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In case a definition is really needed here, a good-faith objection to a proposal would be like "I object because I believe this will harm the encyclopedia so-and-so", whereas a bad-faith objection would be more like "I object because of a personal dislike of the one who proposed it", or nominating a proposal for deletion solely because you disagree with it. (Radiant) 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Query for Elonka

Elonka, if you don't mind I have a few questions, because I have some difficulty understanding your position here. First, why do you believe a poll would be necessary to begin with to establish consensus here? Second, why do you believe the first poll is tainted, considering a few sections up many people said their vote wasn't misrepresented, and nobody appears to agree with your position (except for Fenton who seems to be arguing that his oppose-vote was misinterpreted as an oppose-vote)? And third, why do you believe more people need to be invited, considering the issue was listed on RFC and, IIRC, the village pump?

Also, I note that in the section above, many of the diffs you cite do not actually provide evidence for your allegations. For instance, the page link for "harassing other editors" points to your own accusation thereof, not to evidence of harassment. The diff you cite for "trolls, whiners and sore losers" contains none of those terms. The page with guidelines for Lost was not protected for "incredibly disruptive behavior" but because of an edit war between you and Nedscott (I've unprotected it now since that was several weeks ago). It seems there have been multiple edit wars between the two of you, and I would strongly urge both of you to stop doing that in the future, and instead take it to the talk page or get a third opinion. I would be willing to investigate claims of "highly disruptive behavior", "attacking anyone who disagrees" and sockpuppetry, but I haven't seen evidence thereof (this matter should probably be taken to my talk page or WP:PAIN).

Now the reason that I'm here is because you asked for neutral parties to look into this problem. It would seem to me that you're overreacting a bit, and that this whole issue is less a big deal than you make it out to be. It's not like we're about to delete episode capsules or anything. It appears the issue boils down to "there is general agreement" vs. "we must have a poll", which appears mostly to be about semantics and procedure, rather than encyclopedic content. (Radiant) 09:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I am suggesting a poll, is because I would like to provide a venue where other "occasional" editors can participate and have their voices heard in a more evenly-weighted fashion. However, I am open to other suggestions of how to achieve this goal, which will allow opinions of those who only post once or twice a week, to be seen and considered in an equal fashion with the opinions of those who post many times per day.
I am also suggesting a poll, because with a very busy talkpage (as this one obviously is), it would be very difficult to invite in other editors and say, "Hey, come participate," and then have them faced with 200K of text. A poll or survey format provides a quick and easy summary method to show where people stand, and an easy way for other people to weigh in. The first poll was tainted by having its wording constantly changed ([20] to see what it looked like at the beginning), and when I (and others) saw what a mess it was, we refrained from inviting further people to the discussion. For example, to my knowledge, notice of the poll was never listed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. Before mentioning it there myself though, what I (and others) want is to come up with new poll wording, that we are in agreement with ahead of time. Then we'll open the poll, post about it in the places where it needs to be announced, and let the poll run in a clean way. Which means leaving the wording alone after it opens, and not running it for 72 hours and then proclaiming it "done", but actually giving time for multiple viewpoints to weigh in.
To be clear, I am not suggesting a poll as a vote, or a way to prove a "majority". I am suggesting it as a way to ensure that when we invite other editors in, we're clear on what it is that we're inviting them in to comment on, and that we have a clear format in which their comments can be seen.
As for the diffs you wanted, the only reason I didn't include them, is because it's a time-consuming process to gather them. But I am working on a set now, which I'll provide either here or on your talkpage, as appropriate.
Also, to answer those who keep asking me to re-state what my position is in this discussion: I personally recommend that we change the wording of the Naming Conventions guideline to reflect actual practice. My recommended wording change is:
There is some controversy about the exact way to title episode articles, but the general consensus is that in most cases, articles about individual episodes should use the title of the episode itself, unless that title is already in use, in which case the episode article should include (<seriesname> episode) as a disambiguating suffix.


In some cases, certain series may use slightly different systems, such as to use a disambiguating suffix of simply (<seriesname>) or even to include a consistent suffix on all episodes of a particular series, regardless of whether or not they are strictly required by disambiguation rules. Advantages to this system are that linked lists of episodes use a consistent titling scheme, and it becomes easier to link between episodes if many of them (or even the majority) already had suffixes. Other advantages are that it is convenient to include series context with an article's title, categories look more consistent, and specific subject areas are easier to see in editor watchlists. Disadvantages are that there may be some confusion if a suffix which normally implies disambiguation, is used on an article that did not need disambiguating; and the additional unneeded suffix results in a longer article title than necessary. So, these "exception" types of methods remain controversial, and are generally discouraged (see the talk page for more information).
I think that the above wording would address most people's concerns, except for those who are adamant that the guideline should be enforced as a "no exceptions" policy. It would, however support the cleanup being done of many of the episode categories where there was no clear discussion about naming for that series, while still allowing those WikiProjects that have gone to the trouble of debating titles (such as Star Trek, Stargate, and Lost), to keep their systems. --Elonka 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But occasional editors can still edit a talk page and add a line on whether they agree to a proposal. In fact, this would (in general) even be easier if there wasn't a poll, because if it's discussion they can state their opinion, and if there's a poll they have to think about which pigeonhole they fit best in.
  • Yes, there is a lengthy debate here (overdue for archiving, by the way), but it can all be summarized in a few lines. I do not believe this discussion has had a lack of participants. Sure, it wasn't advertised everywhere, but it was mentioned on the talk pages of the "exception" WikiProjects, and RFC, and the village pump. I note there's no outrage from any of the three projects you mention; the only concern they appear to have is that they want "episode (seriesname)" to be a redirect. They know what's going on and they don't seem to mind.
  • I agree that the earlier poll wasn't handled too well (incidentally, this is one of the reasons why we usually don't use polls for such issues), but the participants have declared earlier on this page that they have not been misinterpreted - so it appears the poll mess has been sorted out already.
  • I believe several people in this discussion object to your wording on grounds of it being overly long. Note that guidelines, by definition, can already have exceptions, and naming conventions are guidelines rather than policy. So one needn't explicitly state "this guideline has exceptions" on a guideline page.
  • You said yourself you didn't want a poll to prove a majority. What, then, do you want a poll for? It seems that you allege that there are people who should have commented here but didn't, because either they were intimidated by the page length, or they were unaware of the page despite heavy advertising, and that these alleged people would have an opinion that differs significantly from that of the active editors here. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you. Now this is an interesting hypothesis, but it seems a bit unlikely unless you have some evidence of it.
  • And finally, I remain willing to investigate allegations of harassment, incivility, etc, but as this seems to be a personal issue it would be less appropriate here, so I would suggest my talk page for that.
  • Yours, (Radiant) 23:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Radiant, there are a few people in this discussion who are currently using a "no exceptions" philosophy to push through hundreds and hundreds of page moves, against clear opposition. In my opinion, the "exception" clause most definitely does need to be included in the guideline, so that it is clear what the consensus is as to what is and isn't an exception. For example, do we have consensus that WikiProjects can agree on an exception? There most definitely is "outrage" from the Lost WikiProject about this naming issue, and if you'll scroll up a bit, you'll see that the Stargate WikiProject rep has concerns as well. As for running a new poll, there have been multiple calls for one, since November 1st (the day after the old one was started, since its wording was changing so much). A new and cleanly-run poll will address a lot of concerns, plus it will provide a centralized collection point for anyone new that wants to enter this discussion. Again: Multiple people have requested a poll, and many others, though not specifically requesting a new poll, have indicated they will not oppose if one is desired.[21][22] [23][24][25][26]. I think that the most constructive use of our time at this point, instead of continuing to debate about whether or not there should even be a poll, would instead be to work on wording that we are all in agreement with. --Elonka 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
As usual, Elonka's links do not support her claims. None of those references call for a new vote. Hardly any even express agreement to have one. Most of Radiant's questions remain unanswered. But, out of context, her post seems to make sense. This is taking rationalization to an art form. --Serge 00:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Serge is correct: one notable example is Elonka's citation of this as Argash supporting a new poll, while this later edit clearly shows that Argash later chose to support Cburnett's compromise (that is, using redirects to cover the "consistency" argument). Most of the other edits were made during the poll, and the confusion that did exist then has been resolved. No one has said that their vote was misrepresented in the final presentation of the poll. I agree that the acrimony of the conversation is probably a deterrent to new editors' participation, but I would hazard that Elonka's stalling tactics (and other editors' understandable responses to them) are more to blame for that than the poll irregularities, which frankly are fairly minor in comparison to the stalwart refusal of a handful of editors to accept the views of the supermajority. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (edconf) Sorry, Elonka, but those diffs just don't indicate what you say they do. Of the six diffs, one is your own; two others (Chuq and Ned Scott) have explicitly objected to a new poll. Argash says the poll was premature and Pktm finds it objectionable, but neither argues for a new poll, and Shannernanner doesn't argue either way. So your alleged support for a new poll is slim at best - and I note you haven't answered my question about what you really expect to happen. Also, I see no indication of the outrage you mention (links please?); it is even mentioned above that WP:LOST has no consensus on the matter. Furthermore, it appears that you were involved in changing the meaning of the first poll. It would appear that you are filibustering. (Radiant) 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Radiant, I am disappointed in you that you would make that kind of accusation. Further, I am bewildered why you would ask for justification of WikiProject "outrage", when you yourself saw the edit wars going on at the Lost WikiProject. As for the call for the new poll, here are some more diffs:
  • Matthewfenton: "proceed with this" [27]
  • Englishrose: "the poll does need to be redone" [28]
  • PeregrineFisher: "let's redo it" [29]
  • PKtm: "I think this wording is clear enough, and I'd like to (again) encourage that we proceed" [30]
  • Argash: Start the poll over [31]
  • Shannemanner: Create a new format that's agreed upon ahead of time: [32]
  • Ned Scott: If anyone feels strongly enough, then we should restart the whole thing. [33]
  • Milo H Minderbinder: "If you insist, at least let the wording be agreed upon" [34][35]
  • Josiah Rowe [36]
  • Oggleboppiter "I think having a new poll is a fantastic idea" [37]
  • Wknight94: "If you want to start a new poll with new questions, go ahead" [38]
Plus of course me, but I won't bother linking a diff, hopefully this will be sufficient: "Let's have a new poll." --Elonka 00:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think this is one situation were common practice holds no weight. For one, it's not uncommon for a single editor to start 20, 30, or even 40 + episode articles. Not only that, but a single List of episodes article can dictate the naming when people create via redlinks. It's also human nature to do things like consistent naming for the sake of consistency alone. It's one of those things that can easily spread, and fast. This alone only tells us that it's easy to start articles on Wikipedia, not that there was any considerable thought behind the process. It's just one of those no-big-deal things, where we can easily change the direction that people follow because I doubt anyone cares that much in the first place. It also shows why bad examples, or examples without context or explanation, are so harmful. Because naming isn't a "big deal" and people are quick to do it, the guidelines shouldn't be suggesting that something is a good idea when it's not.

Also, there was no "Stargate rep", but yes a participant from the project did have some initial concerns that were later put to rest. Not only that, but I myself am a participant of WikiProject Stargate, so it can't be said that such few responses are representations at all, support or oppose. And the outrage from the Lost WikiProject is not from the Lost WikiProject, but from the same three opposing editors found here. You can't just say that one or two editors represent a whole project, especially when WikiProjects are points of collaboration first and groups of people second. There are many editors who do not wish to list themselves in a project, but still contribute to the articles and discussions on article talk pages, that have just as much of a say about what happens with this stuff as people who do list themselves in WikiProjects. WikiProjects are not a way to establish authority or ownership.

If I dare be so bold, but I believe the opposition is more about a power struggle than actually helping to improve a guideline. I'd much rather we take this farther up the chain of dispute resolution than play these silly games anymore.

To make it very very clear, I asked on November 1st if we should restart, and that I preferred not to restart the poll as I didn't fell it was necessary. The context of my words were that if we were to start over we should do it then and there. Do not misread my words. -- Ned Scott 01:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Wknight94's comment does not support the poll Elonka is proposing. I'm a bit bothered at how often the statements of other people are being used for misleading comments like this. -- Ned Scott 04:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Elonka, I did see those edit wars at WP:LOST, but I do not consider a simple edit war between you and Ned Scott to be an "outrage". Since several people from WP:LOST ended up here, I see no reason to believe the WikiProject is underrepresented here.
  • I believe you are misinterpreting several of the comments here; for instance, Josiah Rowe says he doesn't think a poll is necessary, and obviously Ned Scott is not in support of a new poll. Shannernanner does not call for a new poll but for stability in the then-present one. Some comments, like Milo's, appear to be made in exasperation ("if you absolutely insist on a new poll...") which should not be interpreted as support for one. And some comments, like Oggleboppiter's, appear to be based on the idea that Wikipedia must use polls to decide things, which is a fallacy.
  • Finally, I note that you still haven't answered my question of what you expect to happen with a new poll. But it seems that your concise summary at the bottom of this page has largely obviated the need for one. (Radiant) 09:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)/Archive_5&oldid=1136421549"