Talk:Hell's Angel (TV programme)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus:

• Support per the sources provided by nom. If this passes, the article should be corrected to use the same terminology as it sometimes uses film and others program, which makes a confusing read. --Gonnym (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – "TV programme" looks like the better solution under
  WP:NCTV in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - retitle under its full name
  WP:NCDAB -- Whats new?^(talk) 07:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I definitely have not found evidence of that being an official name (Hitchens never uses it) nor a common enough name to justify. The proposed disambiguation makes it clear the article is about the TV programme, rather than a direct reference to the person or a work in some other medium. -- Netoholic @ 09:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, apart from the fact that the title screen of the doco uses that title (which even already appears in the article), see the following evidence in multiple sources, including the Washington Post and Baltimore Sun no less: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whats new? (talk • contribs) 10:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems like search engine selection bias to me - you're searching for that phrase and finding every instance of it being used, not proving that it is either common or correct. Am I to now gather and link dozens/hundreds of sources which make no mention at all of this claimed subtitle? Do we dismiss the creator of the program itself who doesn't use such a subtitle? Let's take just your Google Books searches for comparison. There are 12,300 results for "Hells Angel" "Christopher Hitchens" but only 304 results for "Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta". Additionally, if we look how the work is referenced via Google Scholar, published papers being a place where proper titles and attribution are held to very high standards, "Hell's Angel" "Christopher Hitchens" gives 22 results where "Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta" gives just 1. -- Netoholic @ 17:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Natural disambiguation is preferred where possible. The title card of the documentary uses Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta which you have discounted entirely. Shortened titles are often used when briefly referring to a show. The program Border Security: Australia's Front Line is rarely referred to by its full title, it is routinely shortened to Border Security. Law & Order: Special Victims Unit is often shortened to Law & Order: SVU. The Ellen DeGeneres Show is commonly just Ellen. The Dr. Oz Show is often simply Dr. Oz. That does not alter the given name of the program which the program itself uses. It allows for natural disambiguation from other Hell's Angel articles without the need for further qualification in parenthesis, as preferred by WP:NCDAB -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • A natural disambiguation though must have some reasonable level of acceptance. You've given no evidence that any source close to the production considers that text to be part of the title - which is not the case with your examples, where the alternate title forms are promoted and marketed directly from the shows themselves. -- Netoholic @ 03:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • No evidence close to the production but the only examples I've given are directly from the shows themselves? Total contradiction. The title screen of the program reads Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta. You're seriously saying that is not "some reasonable level of acceptance" -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • You've cited only a title card, and yet title cards/logos can include any of a number of words that aren't actually part of what is considered the title. Its a primary source, and if we all agreed, then maybe we could accept it as it is. The real title card doesn't include a semi-colon, the line "Mother Teresa of Calcutta" appears in a different font and beneath a separating swoosh. Now, IF other sources, like the creator's own book, made clear this was part of the title, that'd be fine. But there is no evidence it was considered as such, and is more like informational text. -- Netoholic @ 07:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, actually, I haven't "only" cited a title card. I've cited primary and secondary sources using the full title. I've also cited examples of other television programs which have a longer title but are repeatedly shortened. Border Security: Australia's Front Line doesn't have a colon in its title card either - do you want to change the article title there as well? Same with The Force: Behind the Line. The same with Law & Order: SVU. Will you be changing the article to Law & Order because the title card has no punctuation? Of course not. A comma, colon or hyphen is often implied - not explicit - in a title card; it is very common. Mr Hitchens refers to the work as a documentary three times in his book, so calling it a TV programme is controversial. Discussion has shown some support for the use of "documentary" as a disambiguator. The use of its full title allows for natural disambiguation, preferred by NCDAB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whats new? (talk • contribs) 09:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And now we're back to just comparing the quantity and quality of sources then. I've shown that those sources that use the claimed subtitle are in the vast minority and far-removed from the producers of the show. I don't particular care about what you claim about other series. Those have their own sources for verification. Hitchens calling it a "documentary" is not mutually-exclusive with it also being a TV programme. Your claims related to this series are woefully insufficient. -- Netoholic @ 11:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fine with current name, no need to change and no compelling arguments offered to justify changing. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's patently an untrue statement – there are "film", "radio" and "TV" documentaries, and not including "TV" makes it unclear which type of "documentary" this is. Further, as was pointed out in the proposal, neither
    WP:NCFILM support the use of "documentary" for disambiguation (certainly for exactly the reason I pointed out). All of that is "compelling" reason to move. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @
      assume good faith and not accuse others of making untrue statements, especially when you have no evidence to offer re your assertion. It may be compeling in your ideas, it certainly isn't in mine and I am entitled to my view without you calling me a liar. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The two aren't mutually exclusive – I did assume "good faith", but that doesn't mean the statement wasn't untrue: You said "no compelling arguments offered to justify changing" – that statement is false. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • You did not assume good faith by calling me a liar. Desist. I presume you have commented in this way to intimidate others not to express their opinions here too but that is NOT the way to win an argument on Wikipedia. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uh, no, I did not call you a "liar". I said your statement was "false". Because it is. You may not agree with the rationale provided here – that's one thing. But you basically said that no rationale for moving was offered. Again, that is false. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • 'There are no compelling arguments' in RichardWeiss' opinion - that is an entirely fair and true statement. Just because he doesn't agree with your arguments, and is not pursuaded to make a change, doesn't make his opinion false -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • • Absolutely right, IJBall is ignoring the assume good faith guideline. Nothing in my statement could possibly be construed as false. Just creating such an unpleasant atmosphere that nobody else will want to comment. It won't work and that is not how we reach consensus on Wikipedia. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The request to rename this article to Hell's Angel (TV programme) has been carried out.

WP:NCTV#Non-series television. -- Netoholic @ 18:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Why is this request being repeated less than a month after a clear consensus against this emerged. Can we salt this please for at least 6 months? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has a Wikipedia:Move review happened? If not, that is the correct procedure, not trying to game the system. ~The fact that it is the same individual who is asking twice makes this look disruptive and the best solution would be to report the user to ANI if they persist. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The close of the prior request said it was "without prejudice to speedy renomination" and advised to "just assume good faith and not throw shade at each other". I would suggest rather than further engage in that sort of talk, you instead simply state a vote and give your rationale (but this time, maybe, based on Wikipedia guidelines). -- Netoholic @ 19:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got to say, 3-2 for the change in the previous disscussion does not seem to me "clear consensus against". --Gonnym (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Netoholic moved the page unilaterally after the previous discussion closed as no consensus on the basis that, and I quote, "*shrug* Its a TV programme", the fact the editor is following process is a move in the right direction. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Non-series television, "documentary" is not a supported style and this should use "(TV programme)". This disambiguator is sufficient to identify the program and there is no need for an exception for this article. --Gonnym (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - retitle using natural disambiguation as preferred by
  Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta. The title screen of the doco uses that title (which even already appears in the article), and there is a wealth of evidence in multiple sources of this title being used. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Redirect from current title would be appropriate. Otherwise, documentary is an appropraite disambiguator to me - naming conventions is a guideline - not a hard and fast rule. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What you've stumbled upon is a very small set of unreliable sources which, like you, have misinterpreted the splash screen as the actual title. These mistakes happen, but they should not be used to misinform readers. Evidence is clear from the creators of the work that such is not at all the intended title. Christopher Hitchens has two books where he talks about this programme, and in both he uses only "Hell's Angel". This should be enough to make the correct option clear, but in case it isn't, then here are twenty (an arbitrarily much large number) other high-quality, journalistic sources which state the title is not as you propose: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35].

WP:NCDAB would be fine, but the title you propose is simply, provably, incorrect. Even Brittanica.com gets it right, so let's not embarrass ourselves among competing encyclopedias. -- Netoholic @ 03:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Natural disambiguation is preferred where possible. The title card of the documentary uses Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa of Calcutta which you have discounted entirely. Shortened titles are often used when briefly referring to a show, as in sources you have provided. The program Border Security: Australia's Front Line is rarely referred to by its full title, it is routinely shortened to Border Security by reliable sources. [36] [37] Law & Order: Special Victims Unit is often shortened to Law & Order: SVU. [38] [39] The Ellen DeGeneres Show is commonly just Ellen, The Dr. Oz Show is often simply Dr. Oz, and countless other examples. That does not alter the given name of the program which the program itself uses. Better still, it allows for natural disambiguation from other Hell's Angel articles without the need for further qualification in parenthesis, as preferred by WP:NCDAB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whats new? (talk • contribs) 04:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're repeating yourself, I will too. We don't use NATURALDIS if it means making up a title which is clearly incorrect. Low-quality sources like what you posted do not have the authority to fundamentally rename a work, and I suspect if you could contact each one and set them straight, they would all correct the mistake in their text. Of course, if they did not, then they do not have reliable editorial mechanisms and so cannot be considered reliable sources. -- Netoholic @ 04:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is it making up a title which is clearly incorrect when there is evidence to the contrary? How is the title used within the show itself attempting to rename a work? Whom should I be contacting to correct the mistake in their text: authors who write ..on Dr. Oz this week.. instead of ..on The Dr. Oz Show this week.. for daring to not use a full title? Do all the publishers who allow shorthands of such titles not have reliable editorial mechanisms thus ruling them out as being considered reliable sources? -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here too is another source for Hitchens exclusively calling it "Hell's Angel" - "Mother Teresa and me" Vanity Fair. Feb95, Vol. 58 Issue 2, p36. We should obviously take the creator's word for what the title is over a single editor's interpretation of a splash screen any day. -- Netoholic @ 05:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FTR, I think this this suggested title should be created as a redirect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Fine with current name, no need to change and no compelling arguments offered to justify changing.♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Current title goes against all naming conventions. --woodensuperman 14:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Gonnym and Woodensuperman. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.