Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The status quo results in article title examples like these:

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

The options are:

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

PPS: I have "advertised" this to various relevant project pages, including

WP:VPPOL, to be sure we get solid and wide input.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

PPPS: Added the dash option, since people (perhaps surprisingly) were !voting for it despite it being not listed. But it was only added just now, so early commenters have mostly not considered it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• 1 - as it is the most visually pleasing. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 1 > 3 > 4 > 2. Some kind of punctuation that separates the series title (and any disambiguation it has) from the season designator is needed, especially if in British cases we might be using things like "series 2" instead of "season 2".  — 
  accessibilty concerns: screen readers ignore italics, while at least some of them either announce uncommon punctuation like dashes and colons or simply pause at them as they do with commas, both behaviors being sufficiently helpful to the blind (a few will ignore them entirely, though this is generally considered a bug, and is likely to improve in the future). Thus, some form of punctuation helps many and hurts none.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thus, some form of punctuation helps many and hurts none. So, are you saying you would prefer the status quo over Option 2? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Would have to think about it more. Both formats are distinctly unhelpful but in unrelated ways, and it would come down to personally, subjectively weighing which is slightly less "reader-hateful" than the other. I might lean a hair toward status quo on that point, but I lean away from it in not wanting to join the dubious bandwagon of claiming there was no consensus ("rough" or otherwise) reached to deprecate that option in the previous round. And Graham87's observation below (even if personal/anecdotal) tends to discount the accessibility factor (B) as being particularly dispositive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a screen reader user who has it set to say *fewer* punctuation marks than it would by default, so I don't mind what happens here. Either way it should usually be obvious from context. Graham87 (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Noted!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2 > 3 > 1 > status quo per my comment in the last RfC. Italics separate the title from the season designator (and parentheticals from any disambiguation). — Bilorv (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 > 1 > 3 Punctuation is stylistically and grammatically unnecessary. I'm not sure how we could determine which is used more in RSes, but my guess is that usage likely comes down to style guides. To respond to points made about disambiguation in the previous discussion: season X is not a disambiguator for TV Series because there is nothing ambiguous about TV series season X. Rather, TV Series season X is a
  fork of TV Series. If there is consensus for punctuation, I prefer a comma over a colon because it looks cleaner. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 2 > 1 > 3 per Voorts. I proposed comma disambiguation in the previous discussion that led to this RfC, and on the arguments there I am persuaded that no punctuation is equally correct, given that the "thing" being described in the article is the season as an instance in itself, rather than the season as an instance of another thing. I think this is particularly clear in the cases with the Example B and C parenthetical disambiguators incorporated into the title. BD2412 T 00:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 1 – The more I think about my originally half-sarcastic alternative, the more I find myself pulled towards it, but I don't think it's worth complicating the argument further. If this is going to happen, commas seem reasonable to me; the other options just feel a bit awkward (no punctuation could be confusing when italics are not present, i.e., in search results, and colons resemble subpages too much to me). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 > 1 > 3. In my opinion, 1 and especially 3 seem contrived and incongruent with common English language usage. I don't see a strong need to make the word "season" any more distinct than it would be in any other compound phrase, but if there is, italics seem sufficient. ― novov (t c) 04:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 1 > 2 > 3. (Found this discussion through VPP.) Of these three formats, the colon is the only one I actively dislike; it feels awkward and not aligned with how people handle this type of clarification in day-to-day usage (i.e., as opposed to when establishing official titles/subtitles). In my opinion, the comma slightly beats the no-punctuation format because I think it's more clear about where the show title ends. However, it's a relatively marginal improvement in clarity, so I wouldn't be unhappy with Option 2 either. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the status quo The only argument that has been raised in favor of changing the current method is that it looks nicer/prettier/cleaner, a subjective non-policy-based IDONTLIKEIT argument that is not a good reason to rename thousands of articles and update thousands of incoming links. The current method is clean enough; clearly separates the show title from the season number; is just as "uncommonly used in sources" as the other punctuation proposed, although that is irrelevant as Wikipedia does not follow other publications' style guides; does not cause confusion as to whether the parentheses are part of the title, since they are rarely found in show titles, unlike colons and commas; and has no contradiction with
  WP:NCDAB, or other naming conventions. The other !voters are reminded that they are not limited to the three options presented and can !vote "do nothing". InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There is already a determination of consensus to move away from the status quo. Do you have a preference among the options presented in this discussion? BD2412 T 13:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Do nothing" is always an option in an RfC (or similar processes) — and "rough consensus" is a weak rationale to make such a major change. As I noted, there still has yet to be an argument put forth for moving away from parentheses aside from subjective opinions about which looks better. But I will say that it should absolutely not be #3, dashes, or any other unconventional punctuation, since that will almost certainlt cause confusion with show names with colons or dashes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2 > 3 > dashes. I'd like to lean toward the formatting that the majority/plurality of sources use if possible, so I conducted a bunch of searches for seasons of TV shows in various genres. My super scientific results shows no punctuation being favored, followed by colons and dashes (seemed roughly equal), then parentheses. Surprisingly, I could not find instances of using commas (even when using commas to search). I disregarded instances of "season x of Show". Because it came up, I do explicitly oppose the status quo because it is confused for and interferes with actual disambiguation (no, "season 1" is not disambiguation so don't call option 1 "comma disambiguation"). Therefore, it creates false positives at maintenance categories like this one. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2, dash, 3, 1. I've made my comments at the previous RfC and other comments above preferring 2 first have already covered my position. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 and only 2 – because otherwise you'll have the very non-grammatical "For All Mankind, season 2 sees the characters..." and then we'll be debating whether we have to set off the "season X" tag in commas like: "For All Mankind, season 2, sees the characters..." I mean yes we could reword as "The second season of For All Mankind sees the characters..." but that won't be done consistently, especially in the lead where people LOVE to have the exact article title bolded appearing... (similar terrible mangling of English happens with the colon) so yes, if we are doing away with the parenthetical disambiguation, let's make things as "natural" (as in, unadorned) as possible so that the article title can be easily used in-text without contortions. Any other choice is either as "bad" as parenthetical disambiguation or worse. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 1 > 2 three is just a bad idea as it indicates a subtitle. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 and only 2, since that's how most reliable sources refer to shows with multiple seasons. Oppose Option 3, since the colon makes it seem like "season" is a part of the show's official title/name, which it is not (and renaming
  The Challenge: All Stars (season 3) to The Challenge: All Stars: season 3 looks ridiculous). Also support keeping the status quo. Some1 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 2. Simpler is better. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 per Joeyconnick. —El Millo (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak support for only 2, though partially inclined to keeping the status quo per InfiniteNexus and the fact that the closing note of the previous RfC stated There appears to be a rough consensus, not exactly a rousing indication of strong support for such a change. But if a change happens, which again I'm not fully sure I support at this time, it should only be 2. There should be no punctation to indicate a season in the article's title. Joeyconnick laid out a good explanation above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 or 3 - I will still say that moving away from the status quo (parens only) is best, but given that option seems to be off the table from the prior RFC, using either spaces or colons would match how other multipart works are named on WP and in the real world (eg Dune: Part Two or Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One). I feel the space version is more natural, but I also can see the colon version. Option 1 seems to be more original research in how seasons are named. --Masem (t) 00:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just wanted to point out that Dune: Part Two and Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One are the official titles of the movies; the use of the colons there aren't comparable to TV seasons. Some1 (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but we're talking about creating titles that don't normally exist in reliable sources for these TV series, so we're doing some type of original research (necessary to build the encyclopedia so acceptable) and in that frame it is best to stick to how other works indicate multipart volumes and use a format that is comparable as to minimize this amount of minimal research. This is why the comma form is weird as that's something make work in a grammatical fashion, but not at all common in other media forms. Masem (t) 01:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Masem: It's not as though sources never refer to shows by their season in a comparable way. E.g., "MCU Theory Explains Why Loki Was Strong Enough To Save The Multiverse In The Loki Season 2 Finale", stating "Loki's ability to save the entire multiverse in Loki season 2 was one of the biggest and most satisfying revelations of the Multiverse Saga"; "Blue Bloods Season 9 Streaming: Watch & Stream Online via Hulu & Paramount Plus", stating: "Curious about where to watch Blue Bloods Season 9 online?"; "'The Voice' Season 20 Results: Who Won the Knockout Rounds and Made the Live Shows?", stating: "The Voice season 20 is headed for the live shows!"); "Where Was Young Sheldon's Paige In The Big Bang Theory?", stating: "there's no guarantee that the shortened Young Sheldon season 7 will bring her back" and "The Big Bang Theory season 12 found a way to bring in Tam, Sheldon's first friend". BD2412 T 03:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is why I can support 2, because that's the effective format used in RS writing. 2 doesn't create an option that is not used routinely in RSes (as it would be for option 1 using the comma). Masem (t) 05:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "creating titles that don't normally exist in reliable sources for these TV series" would be adding random punctuation (commas, colons, dashes, etc.) in the titles. 2 (using the space) is what reliable sources most commonly use for the TV series with multiple seasons. Some1 (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2 per above, but I would change the disambiguation from "Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series) season 3" to "Dancing with the Stars season 3 (South Korean TV series)".   Tentinator   02:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 1. So for British shows the title is going to be Survivor (British TV series) series 3? This looks a little crazy... so I am in favour of a comma. Heartfox (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• My ranked-choice would be status quo, 1, 2, 3. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 as adding a comma or colon would be Wikipedia adding punctuation that is not consistently used by sources. Having the series name in italics and the "season X" unitalicised is clear enough a distinction without us needing to manufacture one. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• My preference would be 2 or status quo rather than 1 or 3. S5A-0043^Talk 14:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The arguments for 2 have convinced me, so 2 is now my preference, but 1 still seems like a fine alternative as the italics help differentiate. But 2 is the seeming consensus, and that option is definitely better than the status quo. --
  Wikipedical (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Indeed. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 and only 2. Only one reflecting real world use. Some observations:
  • User:RunningTiger123 has concerns for "when italics are not present, i.e., in search results. Ideal world, italics would be present in search results. In our less than ideal world, lots of things look wonky in search results, but maybe not so much as to tip scales as to how things in more prominent spaces ought look.
  • User:InfiniteNexus has concerns for "series that already have that punctuation" — not well solved by instead adding two additional punctuation elements (a ( and a )). Should we have instead "Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) (season 10)"? Guessing "Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series season 10)" to avoid adding a dreaded comma. But that makes the part within parentheses all the more confusing. Heaven forbid somebody should make articles on the individual seasons of Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) (2000 TV series).
  • User:Heartfox and User:Tentinator kind of cancel each other out. Heartfox is concerned that "Survivor (British TV series) series 3" looks "a little crazy", but Tentinator is the most correct: if the season is the reason and the summum bonum of the page, then all of these ought to be titled as "Hawaii Five-0 season 10 (2010 TV series)", "Dancing with the Stars season 3 (South Korean TV series)", and such. And here User:OlifanofmrTennant is spot on as well. Vast majority of shows have no such problem. Start with what looks best -- and reflects real world use -- for the vast majority. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Quick comment about my concern: what would be a "more prominent" space than search results? I agree it's not necessarily enough to swing the decision on its own, but I also don't think search results should be entirely ignored when a significant portion of traffic comes via search (either the internal Wikipedia search or external search engines). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2 is the most elegant solution. The extra punctuation isn't necessary to express the idea; all three examples in the "2" row are perfectly comprehensible. Toughpigs (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 I thought I would like 1, but after reading the discussion, 2 is the only option that works in all situations. 3 makes it seem that the season is part of the official name. --Enos733 (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Anything other than option 2, which has no sensible separation between title and season (or series, for British readers) MapReader (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sensible separation is the continued italics of the show title and roman (regular) type for the season/British series. --
    Wikipedical (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Option 1, for the reasons given above MapReader (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @MapReader: Did you mean to put this in the survey section? BD2412 T 16:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Surely, so I've refactored to this section, after their original, less specific !vote.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 4 (in line with sports articles like 2023 French Open – Women's singles, Gymnastics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's artistic individual all-around, etc.) > 1 > 3 > 2 (somewhat awkward), anything but completely inconsistent status quo. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposed - We use parentheses for
  WP:LOCALCON probably shouldn't change that. And in this case, it is the clearest and reduces confusion and ambiguity. Which, incidentally, is the title of the relevant guideline, as noted. If the closer doesn't closer per existing guidelines, and instead closes as some sort of no consensus for the status quo, then some sort of punctuation (4>3>1). Oppose merely having a space, due to lack of clarity. - jc37 04:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  See discussion below about whether (and why probably not) this constitutes disambiguation. And the "(television)" in this page's name isn't disambiguation at all, it's topic identification that is coincidentally using a parenthetical form (topical SNGs also do this, while MoS topical pages do not; we should probably normalize to the "/" style used by the MoS pages so it's clearer they are not disambiguations).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2 - I think others have made convincing arguments that for
  WP:CONCISE and clarity, we should not insert extraneous punctuation. -- Netoholic @ 14:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 2 > 3 > 1. I dislike dashes in titles as there seems to be perpetual churn around the type of dash which is confusing for those not steeped in typographical arcana. Parentheses is just wrong. older ≠ wiser 15:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 2 Supporting all reasonings provided previously, but also based on existing episode articles examples, such as "Glorious Purpose" (Loki season 1), "Episode 1" (Humans series 1) and "Episode 1" (Fleabag series 2); each of these are episode titles "Glorious Purpose" and "Episode 1" that belong to Loki season 1, Humans series 1 and Fleabag series 2 respectively – this is disambiguation used properly. (List of Skins episodes is another article that uses this example a multitude of times.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, existing episode-article examples are not of any relevance, since this is entirely about changing from that existing format (a consensus to make that change already being established) to another format (the consensus for which exactly is what this RfC will establish).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It shows there's already a clearly set standard for what we're wanting to move towards. Whatever the result of this RFC, those episode articles have no reason to change, as this RFC only concerns the naming of the season articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can accept that my usage may not be the same as yours (which I guess is what's being discussed here lol). But "disambiguation" merely means to remove ambiguity, to clarify that which may be otherwise ambiguous. So for example, by adding that parenthetical above, it makes clear that this page of naming conventions is about television, rather than all the other naming convention pages. It removes ambiguity, through clarification.

  The problem, to me at least, is whether removfing the parenthetical standard will increase ambiguity. And if it's merely a space, I think it can. Especially if this starts getting used for other sub-topics. And a comma, colon, or dash, have their own issues.

  I've been wondering if prehaps single brackets [season 12], might be a solution, if the concern is redundant parentheticals. But I'm not sure that that's that's where this train (or potential trainwreck) is wanted to be headed. - jc37 15:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How will the parenthetical standard [...] increase ambiguity? If you see an article titled

  Loki season 1, are there any other articles concerning Loki season 1 that the article would be ambiguous to? How would the title of that article be ambiguous? -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Well, there are some notable shows (with multiple seasons) that have counterparts in other countries (or just other unrelated shows with the same name). We seem to be angling for "Show Title (disambiguator) • season #", where "•" is either a space alone or some form of punctuation (dash, colon, comma, spaced as appropriate for that puncutation mark). Jc37: I get what you mean by "disambiguation" in the looser sense now. I agree with "if it's merely a space, I think it can [increase ambiguity]"; this would even apply to the internal pages that are using parentheses (or sometimes now slashes instead) as quasi-disambiguatory punctuation; it would not be good for us to have "Wikipedia:Naming conventions television" or "Wikipedia:Manual of Style television" (that said, the "/" style is also effectively banned by

  WP:LONGLIST in mainspace).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose. To my eye it's a weak to no consensus in the RFC above so I'd argue this rfc is jumping the gun in building a consensus around a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. However, if pushed to build a consensus in this discussion, lean to option 1 but suggest 2 is out in front and I can live with it until the next time. Hiding T 12:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This RfC is not dependent on the previous discussion, though. It could have been initiated more or less as is even if no prior discussion had occurred. BD2412 T 04:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're ducking down a side alley that's not productive but forgive me, you're being disingenuous. It is framed as being dependent on the previous discussion and looks to build on a rough consensus believed to be established in that prior discussion and takes place in a world where that prior discussion happened. If it had been initiated in a situation where no prior discussion had occurred we would be having a different discussion. The knowledge of the previous discussion informs this debate, and can't be disregarded. You yourself have referred to the previous discussion and believed consensus contained within, so it must be of importance. A number of the opposers have engaged and offered opinions and referred to the prior debate. The only person to oppose above and not comment is User:Necrothesp as far as I can see, so there is consensus building being engaged here. I have made my comment in a consensus building effort but believe it's important and instructive to show how we build that consensus. I can't know who will read these words, but I want to show them what I think and also why I think it, and also what has happened. It's a good debating technique to pretend something hasn't happened, but that doesn't change the fact that it did happen. But like I say, side-alley, I don't see this line worth the time if I'm honest. Far better to agree the previous debate happened, surely? A good closer will evaluate my comment and understand it in terms of building a consensus. Hiding T 07:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Forgive my cynicism, but comments merely denigrating the previous close appear to imply that the clear and overwhelming majority of participants in this discussion who support a change from the status quo should be ignored by the closer of this discussion, in favor of some kind of supervote. No one here has been fooled into voting for the change proposed. BD2412 T 14:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Cynicism is fine, probably mirrors mine and I don't think we're far apart in where we're coming from, which is opposite sides attempting to find a middle. Like I say, four of the previous participants have contributed here so the consensus above has evolved. It's working how it's supposed to work, by continuing discussion. Hiding T 11:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Throwing shade on the previous discussion, everyone who participated in it (other than who you agree with), and the closer too, is not constructive but determinental to the good-faith discussion process you say you are in support of. Just knock it off, please.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • Note: my irritation is not so much towards you as towards various other frankly disrespectful comments made in this discussion, hinting that the closer should treat highly experienced editors like a bunch of rubes to be disregarded. It is an exercise in well-poisoning. BD2412 T 00:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        I'm not intending to well-poison, I hope that's clear. To my eye the consensus seems to be forming around 2, and as I say, I hate it but can live with it in terms of a consensus position, and if that's where consensus lands, so be it and I can see it. If others in the debate can indicate what they can live with, that will help. It's an MOS issue at the end of the day, it's something we have to somehow approach somewhat consensually, I've been through enough MOS debates to come to understand we need some sort of style. Hiding T 11:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• While in this case I do support moving away from the status quo, I agree with the procedural objections above that it is invalid to claim that there is consensus to move away from the status quo. For example, there is often consensus that Sarah Jane Brown is a bad title (i.e. a supermajority prefer something other than that as their first choice), but unless an alternative title gains more popularity than the status quo, the article should remain at Sarah Jane Brown; it is disingenuous to eliminate the status quo as a viable option and force a choice between the remaining options. That said, on the substance I do agree that the status quo is an improper use of parenthetical disambiguation, so my ranking is 3 > 4 > 1 > 2 > status quo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Any editor could have raised such objections with the closer of the previous discussion, or through an appeal of that close. Nevertheless, it has been clear since early on in this discussion that the few editors who support the status quo have the ability to express that. If you'd like, I can poll all of the editors who have supported a change from the status quo to insure that their position to this effect is not dictated by the outcome of the previous discussion. That would eliminate any validity concerns. BD2412 T 20:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So far I have only seen a few people (e.g. Favre1fan93, S5A-0043T) rank the status quo anywhere but the very top or very bottom, so this is mostly a moot point; this approach is most problematic when a substantial amount of people rank the status quo in the middle. But my general point stands: We shouldn't hold RfCs in two stages, one to determine if the status quo should change and other to choose an alternative. This is why the Brexit vote was poorly designed: most likely no individual plan (no deal, customs union, Norway-style, Canada-style, etc.) would have defeated remain, but they combined to give the edge to leave without a clear plan in mind.

  For a more Wikipedia-centric example, let's say that a title is currently a disambiguation page, e.g. New York. Suppose that 20% agree with the status quo, while 80% want change. Of that 80%, 40% want New York (state) to be the primary topic and 40% want New York City to be the primary topic. Obviously, the status quo should remain even though it has only 20% support! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BARTENDER, regarding such situations: "where there is substantial support for moving the hypothetical "Bob Smith" away from its current title, but disagreement as to whether the best target to which it could be moved is "Bob Thomas Smith" or "Bob Smith (podiatrist)" or "Bob Smith (born 1962)". In such a case, the page should be moved, and the closing administrator will just have to use his or her best judgement as to which possible target title best meets the policies and goals of the encyclopedia, and the needs of readers". The absence of consensus for a specific outcome, of course, is not an issue in this discussion. However, another thing that I learned from the process of disambiguating New York is this: a few months after these titles are moved, you will forget that they ever were where they were before. BD2412 T 18:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, I'm aware of that history as well; if

  WP:BARTENDER does not apply unless a substantial amount of participants believe that having a disambiguation page is harmful and would rather readers see some page, even if it isn't their preferred page. (There were indeed some !voters who said exactly that, but they were few in number; the vast majority of state supporters preferred disambiguation over the city, and the vast majority of city supporters preferred disambiguation over the state.) At the very least, if making a BARTENDER choice to move from A (the status quo) to B, there should be majority support for B over A if forced to choose in a two-way poll. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• 2>1>3>4>Status Quo, I think the lack of punctuation is the most ideal, as it seems the most natural way of titling season articles, here, but I prefer any of the options over the status quo. To me, the status quo seems to be using the parentheses as a work around to the lack of mainspace subpages. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 1 > 3 > 4 > 2, per SMcCandlish this is a common sense way to display these titles in a way that's easier to read. Nemov (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Status Quo > hybrid of 1 and 2 > 2. The "hybrid" option I prefer if a change is deemed desirable (and I'm not convinced it is) would be to use option 2 where there are parentheses and option 1 where there aren't (i.e. avoid "),"). Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: No comma-after-parenthetic problem if the season comes before the parenthetical, eh? As in "Hawaii Five-0 season 10 (2010 TV series)". Hyperbolick (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be fine, although how often something like "Hawaii Five-O season 10" is going to be ambiguous I'm not sure. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The original examples already show that it would be "Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) season 10". When would the season comes before the parenthetical in this case? -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think @Hyperbolick was just presenting it as an alternative that would avoid the ), issue. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Common sense alternative, tho. If a season is a subject, don’t see splitting its name. Like if there’s a priest named John Smith we don’t do John (priest) Smith. Don’t have to decide this at once. It’s rare enough, we can come to the new general rule, retitle everything where this is not an issue, then decide this issue. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that we do use internal parentheses in titles such as Milton (CDP), Saratoga County, New York. While not very common, there are several such titles. Personally I think it is silly, but that is where consensus landed. older ≠ wiser 10:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Poor example, Hyperbolick. If we have MacGyver (1985 TV series), we have List of MacGyver (1985 TV series) episodes and not List of MacGyver episodes (1985 TV series); comparing those two, we'd have "MacGyver (1985 TV series) season 1" and not "MacGyver season 1 (1985 TV series)". Disambiguation within a title is completely acceptable. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And downright preferable for something like this. There is no such 1985 TV series as MacGyver season 1. Though that gives me a funny idea about creating a TV series about creating a TV series, and actually naming the series something like Foo, Season 1, which itself could lead to a Foo, Season 1, season 1, etc. And a split-off series called Foo, Season 2 that could have its own Foo, Season 2, season 1. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2 > 1 > status quo > 3 > 4. Strongly dislike the dash. JM (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JM2023: Agree, but do you have a reason why you think 2 is better than the status quo? Otherwise, detractors might argue to discount your view. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Comment: if the current method changes, please ping me as it requires some code to be updated. Gonnym (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Examples of why 1 and 3 would cause major problems for some series that already have that punctuation:
  • Beverly Hills, 90210, season 1
  • High School Musical: The Musical: The Series: season 1

There isn't a good example for dashes, but if a show like Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story had season articles, there would be similar issues. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Im seeing various examples of people saying "x does work becuase this one show has a comma" or "y is bad because of this one instance". There are plenty of shows where this wouldnt be a problem majority even. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The current method does not cause problems for any shows, so if we want to change our naming conventions (for whatever reason), we should not be introducing more problems. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We use parentheses for
  WP:LOCALCON probably shouldn't change that. And in this case, it is the clearest and reduces confusion and ambiguity. Which, incidentally, is the title of the relevant guideline, as noted. If the closer doesn't closer per existing guidelines, and instead closes as some sort of no consensus for the status quo, then some sort of punctuation (4>3>1). Oppose merely having a space, due to lack of clarity. - jc37 04:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  Summer Olympics, so we don't have installments of the Olympics titled Summer Olympics (1996) and Summer Olympics (2020); the Toy Story sequels are titled Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3, and Toy Story 4, not Toy Story (2), Toy Story (3), and Toy Story (4). The only difference between a TV series and a film sequel is that TV series typically appear on television and are further spread out into episodes. BD2412 T 04:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  There's a difference, in that the film is actually called

  WP:NEO territory, where we are now inventing phrases for what something should be called. - jc37 04:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Re-using my above quote, "(season 1)" is not a valid disambiguation. If

  One Piece (season 2) are separate topics that do not require disambiguation. Given your example of Hawaii Five-0, you seem to be thinking we want to remove the disambiguation from "2010 TV series"; that is incorrect, and if you look at the initial examples, you'll see that that's what's remaining. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  a "season 20", is a season of a show, identified as the 20th one. It is a particular noun, which is comparable to a different noun. Such as "season 19". - jc37 04:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We're talking about seasons here, not disambiguations by year. Toy Story 4 is not equivalent to Hawaii Five-0 2010 TV series, that's not the parentheticals that this RfC aims to remove, and that disambiguator is not for other years' episodes of a show, it's for different shows that have the same name, as Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) and Hawaii Five-O (1968 TV series) are. This RfC is exclusively about using parentheticals for seasons, which are not disambiguations. —El Millo (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure they are.

  They are descriptive nouns identifying "something". In this case, we are disambiguating between season 1 and season 2 of a particular show. It's really that simple.

  And we can drill down this concept even more, when we get into disambiguating episode 1 and episode 2 of a particular show.

  Disambiguation is creating a distinction between two (or more) nouns, whether they be objects or concepts or whatever, is immaterial. - jc37 04:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Except for examples like Episode 1 (Humans series 1). The title is "Episode 1", that belongs to Humans series 1; we don't title it Humans series 1 (Episode 1). The exact same situation needs to apply to season numbering as well. Or even Glorious Purpose (Loki season 1) and Glorious Purpose (Loki season 2); note how the season numbering does not require further disambiguation here. Can you show examples of where episode numbers are used as disambiguations? -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, in that case, "Episode 1" is the actual title of the episode, not just its numerical identifier. Compare to Pilot (The Big Bang Theory). Or for a clearer example, Pilot (Twin Peaks) and Episode 1 (Twin Peaks).

  Don't get lost in the use of numbers. They are merely words used to disambiguate between the topic at hand.

  First, we are disambiguating between the show itself and the seasons of the show. Next, we are disambiguating between the individual seasons of the show, and then we would be disambiguating between individual episodes of the show in a particular season.

  This remains true regardless if the unique identifier is a number, like 1 or 2; a colour, like red or blue; or a unique identifier like its own name.

  Where you seem to be getting in the weeds is whether the show or the episode or the season should be the main topic or the parenthetical. And that's something that's been determined by previous consensus as well. Whether we say Season 2 (Lost), or Lost (season 2), either way, we are disambiguating between the two concepts. - jc37 05:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  Summer Olympics not a noun? BD2412 T 15:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  WP:COMMONNAME for "Games of the XXXII Olympiad". So once again, that the actual name of the topic, not a Wikipedia-determined disambiguator. - jc37 17:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I believe that thus far in this discussion, I am the only participant to provide sources containing examples of real world common name usage of television seasons. None of those examples used parentheses. BD2412 T 18:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To help sort of contribute to establishing that how it's commonly used, and to reuse some examples I put up in previous discussion since I haven't really pitched:

  • AMC’s Season Six Premiere Of “Mad Men” Returns To 3.4 Million Viewers, both AMC and the quoted Nielsen use a space
  • Game of Thrones: Season 1, colon
  • Find Out What’s Ahead for ‘The Crown’, ‘Sex Education’ and More, space
  • Yes, Chef! FX’s ‘The Bear’ Is Back for Season 2 on Hulu, space
  • The Bear Season 2: Everything We Know, Review: ‘The Bear’ Season 2 Changes Courses, space
  • The Originals Season 4 Promo Features Shocking 'Return', space
  • RHOSLC Fans Are Reeling Over That Season 4 Finale Bombshell, A Bridgerton Season 3 Clue May Reveal How Colin Will Woo Penelope, space
  • Watch The Man in the High Castle - Season 1 | Prime Video, dash
  • The Man in the High Castle - Rotten Tomatoes, colon
  • Black Sails Season 3, Black Sails Season 3 Finale Is Where Long John Silver Becomes a Legend, space
  • BBC One - Doctor Who, Series 5, The Eleventh Hour, comma
  • 'Breaking Bad' Season 3, Episode 5, 'Mas,': TV Recap, Breaking Bad Season 3 Ratings, space
  • hell, for fun, some podcasts: MIDST Season 2 returns on YouTube, MAG Season 5 changes

  It's fairly clear in common usage that the concept of "Show Name season X" is a discrete and common topic from the general concept of the show, at the very least, in SOME form in a way that doesn't require parenthesis. I don't really see how "Show Name season X" wouldn't be a

  WP:NATDIS option in the same way that we use the names of seasons with official names, i.e. American Horror Story: Coven. It generally feels a little obtuse to me that there's some insistence on stepping around the concept that seasons or series are a discrete unit of a show. At some point, arguments for parenthesis make me feel like it should be "Breaking Bad (Felina)" instead of Felina (Breaking Bad). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Is there some actual styleguide out there in the world for this, or are we merely cherry-picking examples from however some writer of an article (or perhaps their editor) blithely decided to format certain text? - jc37 20:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there is any cherry-picking going on here. A fairly broad sweep of how sources refer to TV seasons validates that these are the common ways by which they are denoted in the real world. BD2412 T 20:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have more that use spaces or colons or whatever punctuation, but my point isn't about style but that seasons or series of a show are considered discrete topics and entries of a work, not mere disambiguation. I'm not necessarily trying to prove that the most common format is "Show season X", "Show: season X", or "Show, season X" (though, ime, it's either the space or the colon), I'm making the point that sources do commonly refer to seasons and series as concrete main topics of their own and in a way that I think our use of parentheses or referring to seasons as just disambiguation within a show does not reflect.

  I do also think that is says something that the Loki episodes brought up earlier makes a great point with the way they're titled. Glorious Purpose (Loki season 1) instead of Glorious Purpose (Loki: season 1) or Glorious Purpose (Loki, season 1). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That they can be seen as/considered as "discrete topics and entries of a work", is why they can even be a separate article. What we're talking about is changing an across-the-board naming convention on Wikipedia. And so far, it's mostly just a case of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. Which I don't mind discussing - After all, many MoS discussions come down to being merely a matter of preference.

  I think this is all well-meant, but I think we need to future-proof whtever we do here. Because episodes are not the only way that topics can have sub-topics, numerical or otherwise. And I think we are very likely to be jumping on a never-ending merry-go-round of dicussions here, if we aren't careful.

  And so far, I haven't seen a "need" for a change. The Loki example is interesting, but to be fair, does naming the page that way hinder or reduce navigation for our readers? I don't think it does.

  So while I'm happy to discuss alternatives, I think we should more think through repercussions of what we are doing here, and also whether not the "juice is worth the squeeze", as they say, in this case to create this exception to the naming convention guidelines. - jc37 22:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no actual style guide being relied upon, but

  WP:CHERRYPICKING is perhaps a claim too far. Rather, what's happening is that various commenters here are trying to rely on how off-site writers in the entertainment press (offline and online) approach this writing question, and surmising completely incorrectly that Wikipedia "must" follow the aggregate preference of offline writers. This is fallacious, of course (specifically the WP:Common-style fallacy). WP has its own style guide, and various off-site writers do not follow it; meanwhile they are following their own stylesheets (AP Stylebook, some other journalistic manual, or one they've developed in-house) and Wikipedia does not follow their style guides. The consequence of this misapplication of the "follow the sources" idea (which is something we apply to facts, not writing style, or it literally would not be possible for us to have our own MoS and AT policy at all) is an artificial favoring of no punctuation at all, because off-site writers tend to drop any characters they can get away with dropping and have far less regard for how easily parsed their material is than WP does (journalism is driven by expediency and concision, and also riddled with "insider-crowd" writing; see also WP:Specialized-style fallacy which applies to fandoms equally as to professions). Further, many of them are are also using styles like quotation marks around series names that are "foreign" to WP writing, which makes the separation of the series name from other information clearer in their material, while WP only uses italics (and not always, just when the formatting is done properly in running text). Thus there are three proposals for punctuated separation, but also some (confused, in my view) argument against using any at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Since the question has been asked, with respect to style guides, the MLA Handbook uses commas, also including the name of the series creator between the title and the season number. I have also checked the Bluebook and the Chicago Manual of Style, and both have instructions for citing TV series and episodes, but do not discuss seasons. The Latin Post style guide has instructions for identifying seasons, but just says "TV Seasons: Season 1, Season 2, Season 3, Season 4, Season 5, etc."; in it's articles, it uses spaces (e.g., "'The Blacklist' Season 3 Spoilers: Why Does Liz Go Blonde?" (headline), and ""The Blacklist" Season 3 will premiere on Thursday, Oct. 1, at 9 p.m. EST on NBC" (text). BD2412 T 13:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There was disagreement in the previous discussion as to whether these can be considered disambiguation. But neither interpretation makes a convincing case for us to move away from parentheses: if it is indeed disambiguation, then parentheses are the standard punctuation used (unless natural or comma-separated disambiguation is workable and commonly used in sources); if it is not disambiguation, there is no reason to switch either, except for subjective ILIKEIT arguments. This holds true regardless of how many people are !voting for 1–4, and you are right when you say This WP:LOCALCON probably shouldn't change that. Perhaps season numbers are not quite the same as disambiguating between topics of the same name, but rather denoting subtopics.

  WP:AT. MoS subtopic pages use a slash, but obviously that is not an option for articles in the mainspace. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think that it's clear that season parentheticals are not disambiguators, but I do agree with you that them not being disambiguations shouldn't on its own prevent us from using them, as different symbols are often used for different purposes and it's still fine and easy to understand with its context. An example is italics, which are used both for emphasis and titles of major works. —El Millo (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We shouldn't rely on italics to help differentiate, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Text. - jc37 05:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read my comment again. I wasn't saying we should use italics to differentiate between titles. I was saying that, in the same way italics are used for two different purposes (emphasis and titles of works), we could also use parentheses for two different purposes. We are not required to use parentheses strictly just for disambiguations. —El Millo (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On that I agree. Punctuation usage is (presumably by design) multi-purpose-able : )

  See also English_punctuation#Usage_of_different_punctuation_marks_or_symbols, or even the more interesting: Bracket. - jc37 05:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Yes. And BD2412's initial rationale was that we shouldn't use parentheses for non-disambiguation. After that, there was no justification given for why? It's going to be a tough one to summarize this RfC if we do end up getting rid of parentheses: "Editors decided in 2024 to switch from parentheses to [XXX] because ... some people thought they looked nicer?" InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This entire discussion was prompted by disambiguators having to deal with monstrosities like

  WP:INTDABLINK exists. It is impossible for disambiguators to battle the constant stream of disambiguation links if things are set up to create permanent appearances of errors needing to be fixed. BD2412 T 15:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Now that is something I wish we could change. I just don't imagine anyone typing "(disambiguation)" into a search. I wish we used some other, more user-friendly, way to to that. But of course, that would also require a broader RFC than just this page. - jc37 17:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would never happen, because we would have either The Great British Baking Show (disambiguation)#Seasons or a DAB page titled The Great British Baking Show (season 1). That's how we always treat partial disambiguation; there's no Hawaii Five-O (TV series) (disambiguation), only Hawaii Five-O (TV series); there's no Apple (company) (disambiguation), only Apple (disambiguation)#Businesses and organisations. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But editors (who are also readers) do in fact regularly use "(disambiguation)" in a search or just directly entering it into the URL bar, because we know how our disambiguation system works; this necessarily means that other WP-experienced readers (who have not taken the step of becoming editors) also do this. That is, anything that WP consistently does becomes familiar to frequent users of this site. Ergo, suddently diverging from that consistency in ways that don't make any sense except to a handful of arguers in a wikiproject would have negative consequences for some subset of our readers (not to mention editors whose internal tools have some dependency on systemic consistencies like how disambiguation is performed).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: just want to put here, very very clearly, since it is become a point of contention, my vote in the earlier discussion was for the principal that a TV season is a complete thing of itself, and not a point of ambiguity. One can write of a show that "Picard season 3 was the best season" (which it was), or even that "Criminal Minds season 12 was a tough year for Dr. Spencer Reid." Hyperbolick (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I've made the point repeatedly throughout both phases of discussion that the viewpoint that a string like "season 3" is some form of disambiguation is just an opinion and is actually contested. I can see it as both a topic in itself and as a form of disambiguation. It's its own topic in that, in your example, season 3 of Picard is a discrete subject that can be discussed and written about on its own merits. But it can be considered disambiguation if one chooses to perceive Picard as a single subject which has been split into multiple pages for length reasons, though in the latter case it's not true disambiguation strictly speaking, but a disambiguation-like consistent naming pattern of the individual segments of multi-page stand-alone list articles (in this case, lists of episodes in seasons of shows, some of which need their own "true" disambiguation). Ideally we come to a solution that gives both perceptions (all perceptions? could there be more?) of the matter something they can live with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SMcCandlish: Let us disabuse the notion socratically. TV series called “Castle" ran eight seasons in the 00s and 10s. There is, obviously, a disambiguation page at Castle (disambiguation). If seasons are individually ambiguous, then all ought to be listed on that page. So, ought they? Another TV series, "How I Met Your Mother" ran nine seasons. No other topic shares this name. If seasons are individually ambiguous, there ought to be a disambiguation page, How I Met Your Mother (disambiguation), listing the nine seasons. Would such a thing fly as a disambiguation page? Seems the ones bending every which way to call this "disambiguation" and deem this whole discussion as "IDONTLIKEIT" are themselves immersed in "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" -- but perhaps they simply feel beleaguered. Look at the followup discussion, which now has many more participants then the first discussion, is absolutely astonishing how little support there is for the status quo. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As stated above, even if we don't consider TV seasons disambiguation, there is no justification for doing away with parentheses. No policy or guideline restricts the use of parentheses to disambiguation, and the current naming system has never demonstrably caused problems for readers or editors. If this is not disambiguation, then the parentheses are simply being used to denote subtopics of a TV series, as in

  Wikipedia:Naming conventions). This is similar to the use of a slash in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film

  , but slashes are not an option in article space.

  Look at the followup discussion, which now has many more participants then the first discussion, is absolutely astonishing how little support there is for the status quo. It has more participants because the previous one was not an RfC and was minimally advertised. There is "little support" for the status quo — by raw votes, at least, but we all know consensus is determined by the strength of blah blah blah — because people are perhaps not aware they can !vote for the status quo, or they were misled by the bold claim in the nom that "consensus" has already been reached for a change when it was in fact rough consensus based on ILIKEIT and contradictory arguments.

  InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just out of curiousity, concerning the example of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) where (television) is a subtopic of the main Wikipedia:Article titles, are there any other widespread examples of this in the main namespace? I'd be interested in examining other similar examples of our current naming situation. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hyperbolick's argument about disambiguation page listing is a solid one. As for InfiniteNexus's "There is no justification for doing away with parentheses", there clearly is, namely a consensus (even if a "rough" one) already arrived at to do so, because it is easily confused with disambiguation parentheticals. "Justifications that don't satisfy me personally" != "no justification". Lots of things "ha[ve] never demonstrably caused problems" but are not the best approaches, so we replace them with better approaches. We do this all the time about all sorts of things, though not trivially. If people consider the current issue trivial, there wouldn't be so much discussion about it. I[DONT]LIKEIT shortcuts to

  WP:AT policy, and the SNGs are add-ons to the main WP:Notability guideline). The name of this guideline page really has nothing at all to do with this discussion and how it should turn out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thank you but no, not at all, I definitely meant in the main namespace, not the project namespace. I want to see if there's any widespread examples similar to how we currently name the season articles; i.e. where there is parenthetical disambiguation that isn't actually disambiguation but rather subcategorization/splitting by topic. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is List of EastEnders characters (2000) or Glossary of nautical terms (A–L) what you are looking for? Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The titling for the "List of EastEnders characters" is nonstandard to how we title things by year (e.g. Deaths in January 2002, List of 2007 albums, 1997 in tennis) and should be renamed accordingly. The title is also misleading because the article only contains characters introduced in 2000, not all characters on the show during that year. BD2412 T 19:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Parentheses are frequently used to split long lists:

  • Timeline of World War II (1939)
  • List of Latin phrases (C)
  • List of Warner Bros. films (2020–2029)
  • List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20)
  • Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016 – election day)
  • Glossary of nautical terms (A–L)
  • List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America)
  • List of Eurovision Song Contest entries (2004–present)
  • List of named minor planets (alphabetical)
  • Timeline of geopolitical changes (before 1500)
  • List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga)

  For articles, it is less common because we can usually append "XXX of" to the main article's title, as in History of Facebook, Criticism of NASCAR, Production of The Lord of the Rings film series, etc. I guess theoretically, "Season 2 of XXX" could also work, but that's not what's being proposed here. As a bonus, the subcats in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style use parentheses to denote subtopics as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Naming conventions (lists) permits use of parentheses for this purpose (though they are not the first choice). That doesn't make it a good idea when there are alternatives, doing it is confusable with disambiguation, and doing it makes them inconsistent with other similar articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  

  Moreover, Wikipedia chooses names for things that don't have common names. We can't choose a name for something that already has an unambiguous name. Just look at how the producers of the shows themselves identify their seasons by name - PBS, in its own press release, titles its show "Finding Your Roots Season 10" (which looks like a great lineup, by the way); CBS, on their own YouTube page, refers to "The Equalizer | Season 3 (interesting choice with the pipe); NBC, on its own website, says "Night Court Season 2 premieres January 2, 2024 at 8/7c; HBO, on its own website, titles its shows as Succession: Season 3, Six Feet Under: Season 5, Game of Thrones: Season 8. Perhaps more telling, doing a Google search for HBO and "season 3" returns the results to the right (the appearance of which HBO does have the ability to control, just as we do for our search results). BD2412 T 16:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So, it basically seems that "chaos reigns", other than one general style guide (MLA Handbook) addresses the question and recommends the comma, with no other such works having any advice (that we know of so far), and actual practice just being all over the map, though entertainment-journalism practice is primarily no punctuation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't say that "chaos reigns"; even the entities that do not list rules in their style guides do tend to follow the common rule of denoting a season by saying "Name of Show season X". If, as suggested by some in this discussion, we put parentheticals after that, we will generally have "Name of Show season X (Name of Country TV series)" or "Name of Show season X (Year TV series)". BD2412 T 17:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What you have basically shown is that sources do not agree on a "standard" way of denoting seasons. Some use spaces, some use colons, some use pipes, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Most, as it turns out, use spaces. None use parentheses. BD2412 T 21:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Has anyone considered doing a flip-flop and use Season X (Show Name) instead? Then that would most certainly be disambiguation, in which case parentheses are the most appropriate. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't flip-flop other things and have, e.g., Crown (Toyota) or III: The Search for Spock (Star Trek). What if we are talking about a unique season number? There is only one show in Wikipedia for which we have articles on its 42nd, 43rd, and 44th seasons, should those articles be at Season 42, Season 43, and Season 44, since they require no further disambiguation from any other articles in the encyclopedia? BD2412 T 21:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be as impractical as the Season X of Show, with thousand of results appearing before the desired one, but in that case, a gigantic Season 1 disambiguation page would technically have to be created with all the first seasons of every show in existence. —El Millo (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Request a close? Given that there has been one new contribution in 10 days, thus most discussion having stalled, do we think it's time to request the close and result from an administrator? Or should we leave it open any further? -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it won't hurt to wait four more days until we hit the 30-day mark and the RfC tag is removed. A request at

  WP:CR now would just display in shamefully bolded red. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That's valid, I can respect that. (I'll admit I forgot the standard timeframe for RFC's, that was a good reminder.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Its been a few days past the 30 day mark so maybe a request is put in? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure.

  WP:ANRFC sometimes takes quite a while to get around to a closure; I've seen it take a couple of months in a few cases!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  There's no deadline. I have no discomfort over this staying open for a few more weeks. BD2412 T 14:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We're at 54 days and discussion appears to have come to a natural conclusion. I've requested a close. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it's definitely time. No new activity in the discussion itself for weeks. BD2412 T 03:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]