Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

Archive 1 - Jun 2003 – Aug 2004 Archive 2 - Aug 2004 – Sep 2005 Archive 3 - Sep 2005 – Sep 2006 Archive 4 - Oct 2006 – Nov 2006 Archive 5 - Nov 2006 Archive 6 - Nov 2006 Archive 7 - Nov 2006 – Dec 2006 Archive 8 - Dec 2006 – Jan 2007 Archive 9 - Jan 2007 - Nov 2008 Archive 10 - Sep 2008 - Feb 2009 Archive 11 - Apr 2009 - Jan 2013 Archive 12 - Sep 2013 -

There is currently a discussion at

Note: Whether or not episode article names should be pre-emptively disambiguated is another topic altogether! -- Chuq 02:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable rational to me, I agree. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Requesting comments for

Please note that this is the same discussion as was already pointed to, two sections up. --Elonka 23:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Same discussion, but it was originally noted for (Lost) vs (Lost episode) instead of where the current discussion is at. -- Ned Scott 00:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it's being discussed on

To use a disambig title when it is not necessary, for style or consistency reasons seem to be against general

I've been trying to find out how the Star Trek example got in the guideline in the first place, and here's the first edit I've seen it in. The talk page at that time did not have any mentioning of Star Trek, nor did the poll that was taken a few days before. I found two places in the talk archive where Star Trek is mentioned:

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive2#Further discussion regarding this poll
  - about a non-episode Star Trek article where it was preferred to use a non-disambig title when it was not needed.

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive1#Episode names
  - which does talk about episode articles and the use of disambig titles, but ironically was being used as an example of articles that don't disambig when not needed.

Had there been at least something that lead to this addition I would have likely discussed first before removing, but there was not. There is no major support for this, and it's very misleading. The inclusion of the Star Trek example is what mislead me to my own assumption that this was acceptable. If we have an exception in a guideline then the exception needs some explanation, some context. The Star Trek example has none, and its removal was appropriate. -- Ned Scott 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I oppose your removing the information from the guideline (especially while you were involved in an active controversy about this in another part of Wikipedia). The information was useful, to show that there are multiple ways that episode titles can be handled. The Star Trek exception clearly affects hundreds of articles, as can be seen at Category:Star Trek episodes. It's worth mentioning. --Elonka 02:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I originally removed it long before we were in a dispute. Being in dispute alone is not a reason to keep a bad note that conflicts with other guidelines on naming conventions. It clearly has affected a lot of articles, and because of it we have a lot of cleanup to do. It's best not to make the job any bigger. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You removed it, without discussion, concurrent with the dispute at

Talk:Fire + Water about a page move, even though that wording had been in place for months.[1] Further, every time different wording was suggested, you simply reverted it without discussion.[2][3][4] , and then in a display of profoundly bad faith, you then insisted that your version was "consensus", and that discussion was needed to restore the information that you had removed. [5]

.For the record, this is my current recommendation of what should (re)-added to the Guideline page, in the section under "Episode articles":

Certain shows such as

Lost

may use different formats. When in doubt, it is best to make new episode articles consistent with the practice that is already in existence for that program.

I would also point you to

Wikipedia:Guidelines, which says, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.". --Elonka

20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I did remove it without discussion, because it was added without discussion, and you were trying to push an absurd and unjustified exception. Your current recommendation is without sound logic. A bad example is a bad example, no matter how many times you re-word it. Advice that is not easily agreed upon and that has clearly caused confusion is something that should be removed. Even if the example is allowed, the way the information was being presented clearly wasn't helpful. It provided no context, had no explanation whatsoever, and there was no "consensus" to include it. Just because no one noticed it for a while doesn't mean it gained consensus. It's not much different than removing unsourced text from an article, because there's nothing backing this example. -- Ned Scott 06:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• The current debate on the Lost articles is actually on
  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines, for anyone who's interested. -- Ned Scott
  20:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

-- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Potential Guidelines

1. Use the existing naming convention from
   WP:D
   ("Disambiguate only when necessary")

   Example: The Dalek Invasion of Earth, The 23rd Psalm, Goo Goo Gai Pan, The Front (The Simpsons)

2. Articles can be named <EpTitle> (NameOfSeries)

   Example: The Greater Good (Lost)

3. Articles can be named <EpTitle> (NameOfSeries episode)

   Example:

   Darmok (TNG episode)

Notification

I created {{User:Argash/TVEpNCRfC}} for placement on appropriate talk pages. Feel free to put on talk pages where you deem appropriate to direct people to this discussion.

Poll

Sign to indicate which options you agree with.

Poll Question 1: Disambiguate episode article titles only when necessary

Support

A "support" vote means the disambiguation policy for television episode articles should be the same as the general policy: a title only should contain a parenthetical disambiguation if the title is ambiguous, and there are other articles with the same title.

1. Support. Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support Shannernanner 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support —Wknight94 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Support —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Nohat 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Support --
   khaosworks (talk • contribs
   ) 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Support --theDemonHog 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Support -- Ned Scott 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Support ThuranX 02:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Jay32183 03:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Izhmal (User page | User talk page) 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Support ···
    joe
    03:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Support - Just the episode name, then X (Y), then X (Y episode), if a previous version is taken. KISS -
    Peregrinefisher
    04:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Support. --
    Wikipedical
    05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
16. Support and use (NameOfSeries episode) if required -- Chuq 07:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
17. Support we should consistently apply rules, not seek consistency by breaking them. -- Percy Snoodle 10:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
18. Support -- Harris 13:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Strong Support--
    (yell at me)
    16:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Support don't use disambiguation unless the majority of articles in the series already require it. (i.e. don't just slap disambiguation onto every episode article of a series for consistency. But if the majority of episode articles already have disambiguation because they need it, then putting putting disambiguation on the remaining minority may be acceptable.) --`/aksha 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Anþony 08:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
22. Support: disambiguation and article titles are not grouping mechanisms; Categories and "List of" articles are. -- JHunterJ 04:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
23. Support — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
24. Support "Predisambiguation" (disambiguation when no known ambiguity issues exist) should not be supported on any articles. — Serge 16:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
25. Support --GhostStalker 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
26. Support --BlueSquadronRaven 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

An "oppose" vote means the disambiguation policy for television episode articles should be an exception as the general policy: a television episode's article title should always include the name of the series it is in, regardless of whether or not the episode title is ambiguous.

1. Strongly oppose thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose: I prefer using a single, unified format for all episode titles, as indicated below. And FWIW, I don't have the luxury of checking WP many times per day, so try not to rush things. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose: I like the person above me would like a single unified format as it looks better, and shows that they are part of a seires. - EnsRedShirt 07:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose: ditto those above me -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  01:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose --EEMeltonIV 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose sometimes. I think that this poll is badly-worded, and further, the wording has been changed multiple times since it was created, so I don't think that everyone's even entirely clear on what they're supporting or opposing anymore. But to be clear on my own opinion: I am opposed to having a naming convention guideline which tries to write in stone that all television episodes on Wikipedia must use the exact same format. I think that most shows can use a similar format, but that some exceptions are valid (for example, the
   Wikipedia:Guideline: Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. So the current poll wording of, "a television episode's article title should always include the name of the series it is in," does not accurately reflect the third "flexibility" option which I think is a better choice. --Elonka
   08:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Oggleboppiter 09:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Poll Question 2: Format of the disambiguation title

This section of the poll is regarding what form parenthetical disambiguations for television episodes should take. This is for all parenthetical disambiguations for television episodes, regardless of whether all episodes have parenthetical disambiguations, or only those which are ambiguous.

(NameOfSeries)

1. Support -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support --Elonka 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding
   unsigned comment was added by MatthewFenton (talk • contribs
   ) .
4. Support -Xornok 03:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Support (based on recent clarification); that is, if disambiguation is necessary, use (NameOfSeries) unless that is itself ambiguous (e.g. Dalek (Doctor Who episode), because Dalek (Doctor Who) might be ambiguous). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Support, per Josiah Rowe; when/if necessary, use this form of disambiguation. I did think about this for quite a while; the Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic section recommends using the simpler disambig when choosing between "disambiguating with a generic class or with a context." Shannernanner 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support when disambiguation is necessary, use this short and simple add-on. Adding the word episode only helps when there is another conflict, such as an episode being named after a character. Jay32183 18:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC) striking my support if the change stays. Jay32183 20:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC) restoring support due to new wording. Jay32183 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Use the minimum disambiguation required. -Anþony 08:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Support, based on the
   WP:D advice of "choose whichever is simpler", and the example preference of "mythology" ( ~ NameOfSeries) over "mythological figure" ( ~ NameOfSeries episode). -- JHunterJ
   04:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Support — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Of course, adding the term episode to the name of the series in the parenthetical remarks is appropriate when required for disambiguation. — Serge 16:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, per above. SergeantBolt (t,c) 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(NameOfSeries episode)

1. Support --Elonka 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Support - There are several episodes which are named after a character, place, event etc. even within that fictional universe, therefore appending 'episode' makes it clear it's an article about an episode, not the place, character etc. Marky1981 22:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Support --EEMeltonIV 22:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Support per Marky1981 --Mnemeson 22:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Support--Opark 77 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Support -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 00:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Support --EnsRedShirt 02:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Somewhat support I don't feel strongly about this, but if I had to make a choice it would be to include the word episode. -- Ned Scott 02:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Support Nohat 18:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC) In general I prefer generic nouns over fields as disambiguator
12. Support Now, are the poll questions going to actually stay the same this time? :P To clarify - disambig only when necessary, and when necessary, use "(NameOfSeries episode)" -- Chuq 07:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Oggleboppiter 09:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Support - Mickiscoole 03:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Further comments

I guess now that I have summed up the issue I will note that the option that I prefer is the second as it's unifying, descriptive and not overly wordy.

Obviously this is not an exhaustive list of pros v cons but it should be enough to get an idea and debate the issue. I will be posting this to

-- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also a discussion about this at Talk:The New and Improved Carl Morrissey, thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done what I can to clean it up. Let's hope something good comes out of this. Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This RfC is a bit confusing. For one, the discussion over the Lost episodes is happening on

That's a good point, Ned. I wonder if we actually need to take two votes here: one to determine whether episodes should always have the parenthetical disambiguation suffix or should only include when necessary, and one to determine whether that suffix should be "(ShowName)" or "(ShowName episode)" or something else.

Regarding the first point (whether to disambiguate always, or only when necessary): I would normally be quick to go with the universal standard, but the fact of the matter is that episode titles are actually pretty rarely used in day-to-day discussions. I mean, if I were to say to my co-worker, "Hey, did you see 'Static' last night?" he wouldn't know that I was referring to last night's episode of Cold Case. I agree that Wikipedia articles should be named with the simplest, clearest title possible, and that we should only add disambiguation when necessary. But "simplest and clearest" doesn't always mean "shortest." In this case, I think adding the disambiguation is actually simpler and clearer than not adding it.--TobyRush 20:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who added the previous comment, I'll dig through the history later and find it but I agree with your first point as I would most deffinately vote for either 2 or 3 before option one. And I do agree with Ned as well. The main reason I posted the discussion here was because it was spread across so many shows. I will through together a notice later tonight that we can throw up on talk pages to let people know that this discussion is here. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of films aren't recognizable in the mainstream, but I don't think they all need to be appended with "(film)." I think if the current guideline is sufficient; if ambiguous, they should be appended with the showname in parentheses, otherwise they should not. Shannernanner 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think using films is a bad analogy here as films are singular where as it's not uncommon for a tv series to have 100-200 episodes or more. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually experienced this myself moments ago... Matthew referred to

The New and Improved Carl Morrissey above and it wasn't until visiting the page that I realized it was even a television episode, let alone one from The 4400. And I was reading a comment about television episodes. Sure, a large part of that may be due to my own daftness... --TobyRush

20:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not real useful to have the same subject being discussed at multiple places. There's no way this "vote" can be considered binding unless people in the other discussions are notified as well. I only stumbled on this by looking at other people's contributions. That notwithstanding, can someone please explain this supposed watchlist benefit to number 2 above? Are there people that are watching pages but don't want to fix vandalism in them because they're not related to Lost?! Please tell me that's not the case. If an article is in your watchlist, you should look for vandalism in edits to that article, regardless of the article's subject - and certainly regardless of that article's naming convention! —Wknight94 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's actually not a primary consideration, but for me, I do a lot of work on Wikipedia, and routinely have about 2,000 articles on my watchlist at any one time, even with constant pruning. If I have time, yes, it's nice to be able to go through and check the most recent change on every single article I'm watching. More often, however, I'm just on Wikipedia for a few minutes, so I like to focus on the Lost articles, since I'm very familiar with that subject matter right now. Also, to be honest, the changes to the Lost episode articles are more likely to need patrolling for vandalism or original research than many of the others on my list. However, I don't have every single episode title memorized, and many of the episode titles don't look like episode titles (like

Maternity Leave). So having the additional suffix makes them easier to spot in my watchlist. And again, it's not a major issue with me, but it is still something that's helpful, which is why I added it to the "Pro" section. :) --Elonka

23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, you can get a watchlist for just Lost episodes if you bookmark this link: [6]. Nohat 23:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on this point as well -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Preemptive disambiguation has always been and continues to be a bad idea. Article titles should consist only of the titles of articles. In some cases, this policy doesn't work because some things have the same title. In those cases, as a last resort, we disambiguate the title using a parenthetical disambiguation. Parenthetical disambiguations are bad thing, to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. We should not be implementing policies that change article titles to generic information containers that contain titles and any other random grab-bag of information, like the name of the series it is a part of, or whatever. It's a muddy semantic mess that would only cause worse semantic muddying elsewhere on Wikipedia. Once we put "(Star Trek episode)" (or whatever) in the title of every Star Trek episode, why not put "(Star Trek character)" after every character or "(2005 novel)" after every novel written last year or "(person who graduated college)" in the title of every article about college graduates, and so on? Star Trek episodes are not special and there is no compelling reason why they should have special exemption to the general policy of only disambiguating when disambiguation is necessary. While it may provide a small benefit in remembering link names for those users who exclusively edit articles relating to Star Trek, for the rest of us, who are just as likely to link to a Star Trek episode as any other article, having a policy of preemptive disambiguation for Star Trek articles is just another dumb exception that has to be memorized and makes Wikipedia less consistent overall. Nohat 23:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, well stated. Shannernanner 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Imo it has evolved into more then being just "disambig." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you in this case. Normally yes preemtive disambig would not be advisable (i.e. 2005 novel, film, etc) but in this case i think the pro's far out weigh the cons. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying that disambiguation isn't disambiguation?

I think that the summary doesn't quite do justice to the first option. The current guideline isn't "first come, first served"; it's "disambiguate only when necessary". Specifically, it's "disambiguate only when there would be confusion if you didn't." True, it's not readily apparent that

The New and Improved Carl Morrissey (The 4400 episode)

.

I'm also confused by the obsession that some editors have with "consistency". Why should we fetishize the names of articles? In any article related to the television series, an episode's name will be piped anyway. It's only in a category that people will see that some articles have the suffix and some do not. Do Category:First Doctor serials and the other daughter categories of Category:Doctor Who serials look less "professional" because the Doctor Who WikiProject follows standard Wikipedia practice? For that matter, does Category:Agatha Christie novels look less "professional" because some articles have the (novel) suffix and some do not? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, well stated, I agree. Shannernanner 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make above is that televisions episodes are exceptional in that the episode titles are not usually known by anyone except avid fans of the series. I agree that it would be silly to use The Man in the Brown Suit (novel), because that book is generally referred to, and thought of, as "The Man in the Brown Suit," and not "Christie's 1924 novel" or "The one she wrote after Murder on the Links." TV episodes, on the other hand, are only known to most people as "last night's Heroes episode" or "the E.R. fifth season finale." I have become a pretty avid fan of Jericho, but I'd be hard pressed to give you the names of any of the episodes without looking at the episode list.

Because the most official name for a television episode is also the least-known and least-used, I think an exception to the Wikipedia standard is justified. --TobyRush 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Josiah, I agree with you in that there is nothing unprofessional about leaving off the disambiguation. I think it has more to do with ease-of-use than professionalism. --TobyRush 00:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'm just not convinced that there is a significant ease-of-use advantage in adding a suffix every time.

I also think that there are probably plenty of casual readers of Agatha Christie novels who might think of, say, Appointment with Death as "the one set in Jerusalem". I don't see that as an argument for moving that page to Appointment with Death (novel). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you guys not pick two options? Seriously, it sets a bad example and it just attempt to have it "one way or the other". Should the two propositions just be merged? Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My own feeling is that it's a bad idea to pick one and only one way of doing with it, and then trying to force that one method on every episode article for every series. I think that for some series, using the suffixes is a good idea, and for others, the "only in cases of disambiguation" works well. But some others appear to disagree and want to insist that there should be only one method of handling it. Maybe we should add a "Flexibility" option to the above poll? Then we could a sentence like this to the guidelines: Certain shows such as Star Trek and Lost may use different formats. When in doubt, it is best to make new episode articles consistent with the practice that is already in existence for that program. --Elonka 00:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nohat, I am

Well, there are major advantages and disadvantages and minor advantages and disadvantages. Since many of the existing entries seemed to me to be extremely minor, it seemed reasonable to just make the lists as exhaustive as possible and let readers decide for themselves the significance each pro and con. As for whether any are redundant, I don't think any of my additions are; they all occurred to me as distinct advantages or disadvantages, although the distinction in some cases is somewhat subtle. Perhaps some related but subtly distinct pros and cons could be combined into single bullet points, but aren't we splitting hairs enough? Nohat 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My view (as someone who is very peripheral to this discussion, on which I don't have immensely strong feelings) is that people are using the "Pro" and "Con" statements above to implicitly argue for their bias, rather than present a neutral laying out of various approaches. The statements seem overwhelmingly slanted towards Option 1, in other words. I find this objectionable as a debating style, frankly, and it makes me wonder why people feel they need to stack the deck in this manner. -- PKtm 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I removed everything but the options. Now, can get back to what's importante?

Elonka, no. Whatever the ultimate fallout is, a clear policy needs to be set, no exceptions. And I was talking about votes. People voting for guidelines two and three, specifically. We might as well merge them for now if people are just going to vote for both Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 00:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be OK with merging options 2 and 3 for now and then doing a sperate poll if that option prevails. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the removal may have been a bit hasty. There were some valid points on both sides that people should take into consideration. Please consider restoring the information, perhaps putting it in a slightly different context. Nohat 00:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased the characterization of the existing policy from "first come first served" to "disambiguate only when necessary". I think that's a more accurate description. Whether the pros and cons are kept or not, I hope this can be retained. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to start anything but alot of the pros/cons that were added were just restating

WP:D -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs 

| 00:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The two questions are completely orthogonal, and the current format of the poll conflates them. Nohat 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For now, I think we should stick with the poll as it's structured, rather than making quick course changes. I see a lot of commentary here from people (including myself) who have the luxury of being able to check Wikipedia multiple times per day. But as I'm sure we all know, many Wikipedia editors who might like to offer an opinion, haven't even seen the poll yet. So I recommend letting it run for a few days, and give everyone a chance to weigh in. Meanwhile, we can also discuss proper wording for another poll, if one becomes necessary. Remember,

Voting is Evil. We're not here for a "majority rules" option, we're here to try and have a good faith discussion, and see if we can find a consensus. For example, along with the "do it or don't do it" options, I still think it's worthwhile to discuss the "It depends" option, to allow flexibility in the titling systems for different television programs. --Elonka

01:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the poll format a bit so people can state a preference for disabig titles and indicate support or oppose for disabig only when necessary. Those who wish to oppose the latter will need to re-sign under the new section. Sorry for the late change, but I did sort of suggest this early on (and then had to go to work). -- Ned Scott 02:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion could benefit from the KISS principle. Adding disambiguation when unnecessary just complicates things. If "Title" is redirecting to "Title (disambiguation)" the page always gets moved. Any argument that a particular type of article is an exception puts too much emphasis on trivia, which we also like to avoid. Jay32183 03:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the stupid votes for multiple policies and "opposition". Let's be clear: you cannot vote for two things, period. One or the other. By voting for one thing, you're voting against the other. Pick an option and stick with it. Double votes for dabbing and no dabing have been removed. If the voters really care, they can re-add ONE vote to ONE choice and no more. Honestly.... Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 07:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits. You clearly misunderstand the situation. There are two different things being polled here. If you took the time to read the discussion you would see that. -- Ned Scott 08:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A question

Just a quick question for those who are supporting sticking with the current policy. Are you voting that way simply because it's the current policy? Not to be rude I just haven't seen anyone give a good and valid reason as to why they prefer that. Mostly what I've seen from your group is "Thats the policy why change it?" I'm really curious to know. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 09:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines has a lot of that discussion. -- Ned Scott

09:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean; see Josiah Rowe and Nohat's reasonings, for example. Shannernanner 09:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than saying they dont want to change the current practice the only thing I've seen them ask is do the categories look less professional because some have the suffix and some don't. I would answer yes they do but that isn't the point. the point that I (and I think most of the others) am trying to make is that the suffix adds much needed context to the article title. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  10:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I don't believe you've read them; here are the diffs (diff 1, diff 2). Shannernanner 10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I read them, and all they seem to say (as far as I can tell) is regurgitate the existing policy. The only unique statement I see was this I'm also confused by the obsession that some editors have with "consistency". Why should we fetishize the names of articles? In any article related to the television series, an episode's name will be piped anyway. To which I would say we aren't obsessed, we just want consistency across large swaths of articles. The novel argument or character argument just doesn't wash with me. Where you might have a handful of characters in a series or novels in a trilogy or series, a TV show might have 100-200 episodes through out its run (and don't get me started on Dr. Who). I guess what I'm asking is why do you think it's so wrong to preemptively tag these large chunks of articles? Why do you think it's so wrong to be consistent across these large number of articles? -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  11:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's wrong because it's pointless and has no end. The most prominent reason on the disambiguate-always side seems to be that Lost episode articles will be easier to find in Elonka's 2,000-item watchlist! By that logic, I should tag Steve Trachsel and José Reyes with (New York Mets player) because I'm a New York Mets fan. What a terrible reason. The name of episode articles is pretty trivial anyway since no one knows episodes by name - they'll only be able to find the episodes by scanning through lists with season numbers and summaries - and then the piped links will make the inconsistency invisible anyway. I'm still waiting for a decent reason for pre-emptive disambiguation in any case, let alone among Lost episode articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the current guideline because it's a good guideline. I haven't seen too many say they like the current convention solely because it's the current guideline so I don't know why you say that. I disagree that there's some level of "professionalism" gained by adding a word in parentheses to only this group of articles. Among other things, this opens the door to add (whatever) to every article title. The same reasoning applies almost anywhere - I'll add (baseball player) to every baseball bio, and (nation) to every nation article and (plant species) to every plant species article. What's the point to any of those? It doesn't make any of them look more "professional" and only makes life (very slightly) easier for editors, not readers. I like the term "fetishism" that someone is using here to describe making the article names fit the same pattern because that seems to be the only motivator here. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Living_people&from=Smith - should we add some common disambiguator to all of the living Smith articles just because all of the article titles on that screen don't match? Of course not. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If people are seeing the most prominent reason to "disambiguate" (I'll explain the quotes in a minute) as being the improvement of Elonka's formidable watchlist, then I think at least one argument is being overlooked. In my mind, the most prominent reason to do it is because episode titles alone are not complete or dependable identifiers of television episodes. Some TV series (The Simpsons, Friends) don't even display the titles as part of the episode at all. If you read a novel where each chapter was marked with only a number ("Chapter 1," "Chapter 2," and so on), would it be intuitive to have research on those chapters listed under the names that the author might have used but didn't actually include in the book?

That being said, I wonder if part of the issue here is semantics: the proposal is to somehow put the series name in a parenthesis after the episode title, something that is otherwise used in Wikipedia to indicate disambiguation. But I'm not sure that disambiguation is people are looking for here (which is why I put it in quotes above). The Jericho episode "The Four Horsemen" seems to better illustrate what I'm thinking of, but of course that's hopelessly unwieldly for an article name. Is there better way to identify episodes as being "chapters in a series" than by using the system normally used for disambiguation? --TobyRush 15:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Toby, this is a noteworthy point, and it leads to the question of whether it is necessary to provide this context in the name of an article. Any link to a specific episode of a television series should provide enough context for a reader to know that they're going to an article about an episode. The job of an article title isn't to provide context for those who don't know what the subject is — the article does that. If I came upon a contextless link to, say Adios Butler (a page I found by hitting "random article" a few times), I would have no idea what that was. But if I see a link to Adios Butler in a list of pacing horses on Harness racing, then I'll know that Adios Butler is a horse. My ignorance of the subject of horse racing is not a justification for renaming that article Adios Butler (horse).

The mere fact that most people who watch television don't take note of episodes' names does not mean that Wikipedia needs to provide that context in an article's title. I'd expect that if someone wanted to find an article on a particular episode of Lost, they'd probably go first to

Further Instructions (Lost). So the fact that most television viewers don't know episode names is really irrelevant to the question of Wikipedia's naming conventions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs

) 19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The same point still holds though. If someone mentions Fred Clarke, not too many people will know who that is. Is that a reason to name his article, "Fred Clarke, Hall of Fame Major League baseball player"? I don't think so. The only people that are likely to ever find the Jericho episode article you mention are people who are looking for Jericho episode articles - whether it's disambiguated or not. If I click on The Four Horseman and it turns out to be a Jericho episode article, so what? I'll figure it out after the first sentence (assuming it follows

WP:GTL as it should). —Wknight94 (talk

) 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If we, as Wikipedians, decide that individual television episodes are notable enough to have their own articles, then they are prima facie notable enough to stand alone on their titles. TV episode titles are not qualitatively more obscure and in need of contextualization than any other group of relatively obscure things, like Hindu gods, Negro League baseball players, or villain groups. The things in those groups don't need preemptive disambiguation, and neither do TV episodes. Nohat 18:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point, Nohat. --TobyRush 18:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nohat and Wknight94 have explained the "keep it as is" position fairly well, but just for the record I'll add my reasons. I do support the existing policy, because it's a good policy. An article should have the shortest name that identifies its subject clearly, and without ambiguity. As TobyRush points out, parenthetical suffixes on Wikipedia exist to resolve ambiguity between titles, not to provide context for an article's subject. The article does that, ideally in its first line.

I don't think that it's "wrong" to be consistent — I just don't think that context-providing consistency is a value that needs to be taken into account in article naming. I do feel that the example of Agatha Christie novels is relevant — only the devotees of a particular author will recognize the titles of all of her works. Many of them are works in a series, not unlike the episodes of a television series. It's exactly parallel to the television example: if we must label The Unquiet Dead as The Unquiet Dead (Doctor Who episode), then by the same reasoning we should label Five Little Pigs as Five Little Pigs (Hercule Poirot novel). I really don't see the difference. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, though, I don't think it's exactly parallel; the most commonly used identifier for a novel is more often its title, whereas the most commonly used identifier for a television episode is something along the lines of "that one episode of [series name] where...". If we're looking for something analogous to "episode X of series Y", I think it's somewhere inbetween "novel X of author Y" and "chapter X of novel Y." It seems to me that someone who reads Agatha Christie novels, whether a "devotee" or simply a fan of fiction in general, is going to know the books by their names. But my brother-in-law, who can quote entire episodes of The Simpsons verbatim, can't tell you the episode names for any of them.

However, finding an exact analogy is going to be impossible because it's going to vary wildly within any category, television episodes included. My point is that television episodes represent a unique situation, and that as such it's worth exploring whether or not they warrant an exception to the general rule. In that regard, though, your point (the first line should provide the necessary context) and Nohat's point (if an episode has its own article, it's independent enough to be identified by the episode title) are absolutely correct. --TobyRush 19:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I also support the existing policy, not because it's the one that exists, but because it is a good, well thought out, policy. I mentioned the KISS principle above as to why the existing policy is good. Not using disambiguation is always the simplest thing to do, it just isn't always possible because of ambiguity. When ambiguity complicates things anyway, using a longer title is actually useful, but the longer title should still be the simplest one possible. The first time I read the policy I thought, "Well, that makes sense." which is why I used it when naming articles from Xiaolin Showdown. Those articles may not be very good yet, but they all have the simplest name they can, and I've had no trouble keeping track of them in my watchlist even when they don't say (Xiaolin Showdown) after them. Jay32183 19:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My position in support of suffixes is this:

• In the case of Lost, the majority of the episodes already have the suffix, since the show creators like to re-use specific phrases, so it makes sense to add suffixes to the minority of episodes that don't have it, in order to keep a consistent look and feel.
• By the nature of the show, the episode articles are highly interlinked, and we frequently have to link to multiple different episodes within each article, so it makes sense to use a consistent titling scheme for ease of editing, rather than constantly having to check to see which episode has the suffix, and which one doesn't.
• Ease of navigation for the average reader: If they are stepping through articles with the navigation box, I think it looks odd to see that most of the episodes do use the suffix, but some do not. Most of our casual readers are going to be oblivious to the subtleties of disambiguation, so I don't think it's an issue for them. The method of only adding suffixes to episode titles that absolutely need it for disambiguation, ends up looking "random" to most people, resulting in a look that is unprofessional and confusing.
• Another advantage to including suffixes, is the watchlist issue, though I will repeat again that this is not my primary motivation, it's just an added benefit, to quickly be able to identify which items in my watchlist are Lost episodes.
• With consistent suffixes, the category listing looks cleaner, rather than being an apparent hodgepodge of episodes with and without suffixes, which frankly looks like an error: Category:Lost episodes.

And lastly, I continue to be bewildered as to why people feel it's so necessary to make a strong stand on this "no suffix" point. I honestly don't see that there would be any major negative impact on Wikipedia by allowing all of the episodes of a particular television show, such as Lost, to use a consistent titling system. The Star Trek episodes in

WP:POINT. --Elonka

21:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're still simply calling the current guideline obsessive while using arguments for your viewpoint which frankly sound obsessive. You're saying you want consistency across Lost episode titles while simultaneously saying consistency across different TV episode conventions (Lost vs. Simpsons, etc.) is not important. Your first, third and fifth points above are almost identical - going towards some sort of lack of professionalism which I just can't buy at all (I can't see how any reader would care that some of the articles have (Lost episode) after them and some don't). Your second point goes just as much for most other subjects (I know I'm repeating myself but do you think I write an article about a baseball player without ever referencing any of his teammates or opponents? Should I put (baseball player) on the end of each one just in case two of them are named Smith and Jones and would need disambiguation?). The watchlist issue can be solved easily - prune your watchlist if you only want to maintain certain articles. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I actually find disambiguated titles helpful - and using them arbitrarily would completely diffuse that helpfulness. Disambiguated titles are an instant indicator that there are other articles and subjects which are similar and lets me - as a reader - simply remove the (whatever) part of the title and quickly see what other articles are named similarly. In the case of Lost episodes, it would be a quick way to find what the episode name is referring to. When I run across an instance where the article without the (whatever) just redirects back to the article with (whatever), that's obnoxious to me! For an inexperienced user who isn't familiar with redirects, that could send them into a very frustrating circular loop. "I remove the (whatever) and I just keep coming to the article with the (whatever)!" Talk about unprofessional... it almost looks like a bug in the system. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Wiki-Knight, and that's one of my points, frankly. Still, I fear this may not be getting either side very far. I mean, the excessive dabbers can argue for their perceived pros and we can denounce their practices with our perceived cons, but is any side right? Is either side actually acknowledging or diffusing the others' argument? I'm just beginning to wonder if discussion isn't pointless...Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it's certainly getting repetitive anyway. To me, it would take a very convincing argument to overturn such a longstanding guideline and I'm not hearing anything anywhere near convincing. I can't shake the feeling that this exact argument went on three or four years ago and is how the guideline came to be in the first place - and it will probably be repeated again every so often. Can't wait... :( —Wknight94 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Should one of the disambiguation examples be adopted, there is also the problem of series which are named identically but came out at different times. I can think of only one series this applies to, and that is Battlestar Galactica. Currently, for example, we have

Either way there's going to be ambiguity. I'd recommend listing all ambiguous titles with the year of the series for clarity. On the unlikely chance that excessive dabbing wins, add the years to them all. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless the excessive dabbing wins the year should only be added when necessary, because an episodes in both had the same title. The disambiguation is only for Wikipedia to have separate file names, it's not for people to search for a particular topic, but separate to similar topics from each other. Jay32183 00:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is another very nice example of why not to disambiguate unless necessary. When you do, you're just categorizing - and Wikipedia already has categorizing functionality. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the majory argument for using disambiguation is consistency. On the same principal, having all TV series using the same title format (either disambiguation or no disambiguation) is also very important in terms of consistency. Which means doing massive numbers of moves one way or the other. May as well be no disambiguation because it seems like most TV series do not have the disambiguation.

Also, can someone change the poll questions around? The way they're formatting now is confusing. The "opposse" sections are not needed. A vote for support in one of the three options shows opposse to the other two. Right now, there're people voting support for more than one option. And some people voting oppose on the two options they don't support, and some people not.

Have either just three options and people show support for one of the three. Or have two questions, the first addressing whether we need disambiguation. And the second for what type of disambiguation to use (for people who are pro-disambiguation). --`/aksha 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Poll changes

I'm not sure who changed/refactored the poll questions, but I now find that I have my name under an item that I do not wish to vote for. "disambiguate only when necesary, and then disambiguate with (SeriesName episode)" is NOT the same as "disambiguate all with (SeriesName episode)". Of course there have been so many edits and changes to the page since then, I don't want to attempt to change them back and risk doing the same thing to someone else. All I can suggest is everyone CHECK their votes! -- Chuq 02:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka seems to have been the one to change it [7]. I thought it was clear that we were discussion two separate issues, to disambig only when necessary, and what disambig title to use. I too found myself under as section that said "always add" which is NOT what I voted for. I've changed the sections back and removed the "oppose" sections because they're redundant to the "support" section of "Disambig only when necessary".

Now I know that I did make a change to the poll, but that was after some discussion and the change didn't change the meaning to people's votes. At this point we know what people support, but some who are opposed might have to re-sign under the "oppose" of the first part. This is different than actually changing what a person supports.

Are we clear on this are do we have to start over? I'm really hoping that this is clear now and we can just keep moving forward with collecting information, but if anyone feels strongly enough then we should restart the whole thing. -- Ned Scott 05:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I may have added to the confusion in an earlier attempt to clarify things. I thought that the three options were meant to be "disambiguate only as needed", "always add (seriesname)" and "always add (seriesname episode)", and tried to clarify the titles accordingly. I apologize if that was an error. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not simple, but here's how I think the poll is supposed to work as it is/was—depending on the edits made after/during this post—at 08:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC): the first part "disambiguate only when necessary" contains support and oppose votes. The "Oppose" stands for the "always disambiguate" votes. Right now, the "oppose" side is not fully represented as the system used to be a list of three separate policies, not two separate debates.

Voting for either "<series>" or "<series> ep" does not mean you're voting to disambiguate always. It's only a vote for which of the two options to use, even if "disambiguate only whe necessary" wins.

Currently, "dab when necessary" and "<series> ep" are both winning. Should this stay that way, the final result will be to follow the general pre-existing policy and always identify an article as being an "episode" of a series. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added clarifiers to the poll itself. I tried to make my descriptions as neutral as possible, but if bias has slipped in, I call on others to fix it. Nohat 08:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused

I'm confused now. Have you changed the poll to where if (like me) you favor preemptive dabing I have to oppose the first option and support the second option(which ever one I prefer)? If thats the case I think we need to start the voting over and re-inform people, as I'm sure there are lots of people who came in here, made their choice and left nary to return again. Essentially scewing the vote. To be honest I think the poll was started prematurely anyway before the options were fully discussed. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the format very slightly and clarified the headers to try to reduce this confusion. I don't want cause trouble, though, so someone please feel free to revert these changes if you think it's out of line. Once we determine an acceptible format for the poll (I agree, Argash, maybe we started the poll a little soon), I volunteer to help send messages to previous voters, asking them to return and confirm that their opinions are accurately recorded. --TobyRush 17:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would have been good to clarify a format for the poll and stuck with it, instead of changing it so many times, muddling the consistency of the votes. I believe several of the votes for the disambig appendages are meant as oppose votes for the first option, per the original poll format; it would be good if the current voters could be notified of the new format. And if the format could stay static now. Shannernanner 17:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The last revision before the poll was changed is [8]. Here is a list of everyone who had voted before the poll was changed:

Khaosworks, Thedemonhog, Ned Scott, Argash, Elonka, MatthewFenton, SigmaEpsilon, Marky1981, EEMeltonIV, Mnemeson, Opark 77. They should all be notified on their talk pages that the poll has changed slightly and that they should double check their vote to make sure it corresponds to their actual preferences. Nohat

18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For whatever reason this didn't occur to me before, but I think that the previous voters who only voted support on the current "first poll" should be notified that they can also vote on the second items (which disambig to use "only when necessary"). Shannernanner 19:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as someone in the list above, count me as an "I don't care" to the second question. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the poll can even be salvaged at this point, it's been changed so much. I have reworded things to indicate the way that I thought was our intention at the beginning of the poll. In the meantime, I think that it's important that we continue talking about this, as this matter is obviously not going to be solved by polling alone. --Elonka 20:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your rewording has now caused people's ideas to be invalidated from after the change. There are actually two things that need to be discussed. I still consider the word episode superfluous when the disambiguation is necessary, unless there is further conflict, and I should be able to voice that opinion as well as not adding superfluous disambiguation in the first place. I am very much against using article titles in the way that categories are intended to work. Marking an article as an episode of a particular series is a job for categories, not the titles. Jay32183 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The poll has actually only changed once, and other poll changes have been reverted. After I had made the first change I noted that people who wanted to oppose "disambig when necessary" would need to re-sign under the new section, but all existing votes would not change their support meaning. The only thing that would be lost is how many people directly oppose "disambig when necessary", so that would be the only data we would have to "recover". The other (now reverted) changes, on the other hand, change much more than that and really make a mess of everything. As long as we are able to contact everyone who wishes to be counted as opposing "disambig when necessary" then all other data will be true. -- Ned Scott 21:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The second polling option looks like it should be about what disambiguation method should be used, but then the discription says that I would be supporting that some tv series should be an exception to the disambiguate only when necessary. I would like to support disambiguation by (NameofSeries) when possible and (NameofSeries episode) only to avoid further confusion. I just want to be sure that that is the idea I'm getting across when I put my name on something. Jay32183 22:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What was done subsequent to my previous comment was exactly what I was talking about; the polling format should stay static, as it invalidates users' votes and makes it very difficult to draw any legitimate conclusion from the poll. The previous format — prior to the last "reversion" — was a good one, which seemed to be understood and followed, as far as I can tell. I agree with Jay32183's comments as well. Shannernanner 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First: They're not votes. This is not a vote. This is what's called a poll. See

good faith on the part of everyone involved. Can we find a way to discuss this issue, that doesn't involve a black and white polarized "Right and wrong" debate? Is there no room for compromise? --Elonka

00:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If we're talking about guidelines as descriptive of what actually happens on Wikipedia, rather than being prescriptive of what we think should happen, then "letting the group of editors who work on articles for each television series" is the existing guideline. The Star Trek editors decided a while back to put parenthetical suffixes on all episode articles. The Doctor Who editors, by contrast, decided to follow the general Wikipedia guideline, and disambiguate only when necessary. If we can't reach a new consensus on this page, then Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) should be amended to describe what the actual practice is.

However, I don't think that we've reached that point yet. In fact, I think that we may be able to reach a consensus to support the guideline as it currently stands — that is, to follow general Wikipedia guidelines, and disambiguate only when necessary. What I'd like to hear is whether there is any way to follow the existing guidelines and still address the concerns of those who'd rather have articles in a given category look "consistent". We can keep "varying by series" as a fall-back option, if consensus proves impossible, but let's try to see if there's room for compromise short of that. OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I referred to it as a poll; your reply comes off as rather confrontational. I was not saying that the poll had stayed static, but requesting that it stay static rather than constantly changing as it had been. Shannernanner 00:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to Elonka's last comment in this section: You're right, it's a poll, not a vote. With that in mind, we are just collecting information from this poll. With the current format, changed as it is, we can still say there is reasonable credibility for the data collected. We won't be ending this poll right away, and that will give all editors enough time to re-list an oppose "motion" under the oppose section for "disambig only when necessary". Since it's not a vote, and we're just collecting information, I don't really see the need to restart the poll (but still let it be open for at least a few more days, if not a week or so).

Second, the claim that the disambig titles were apart of the Lost episode mediation has been really bugging me. It's completely false. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes, and then the message that the mediator posted about the outcome to the top of Talk:List of Lost episodes here.

Third, yes, guidelines should be treated with common sense, and exceptions should be made where reasonable. We all agree on that. However, what many of us are saying is that you are not presenting a reasonable exception, or even one that could be considered common sense. Flexibility can be a good thing, but without a good reason it becomes a problem. -- Ned Scott 03:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a vote

I am actually amazed by how many people involved in this discussion, who think they know disambiguation rules backwards and forwards, are completely oblivious to how wrongheaded the idea of "voting" is on Wikipedia. This is not a vote. This is a discussion. This is not a "majority rules" situation. This is not a case of trying to find a "winner" or a "loser". The poll serves only to get a rough idea of where people stand on a complex issue. What it is showing me, is that we do not have a clear consensus, and that we need to keep talking about this, in good faith. I encourage everyone to eliminate the words "vote", "policy", "winning" and "losing" from their vocabulary, as these words are not helpful. Please instead very carefully read

This is the typical mantra of someone whose idea is not gaining much support. How much longer do you propose this discussion should continue? And how many more times after this? Can we please draw the line somewhere? This is the 3rd page and like the 8th or 9th section I've posted a message regarding the same subject. Attrition, attrition, attrition. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I think it's very clear at this point the consensus is to disambig only when necessary. We can keep going and keep discussing, we can even restart the poll, I won't object to such things, but.. yeah.. we really don't need to. -- Ned Scott 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll object to restarting the poll. Vehemently. I'm trying to

WP:AGF here but I'm sensing a deliberate stalling tactic being employed. —Wknight94 (talk

) 21:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I followed Elonka's suggestion, and re-read Wikipedia:Consensus with this discussion in mind. I was struck by this sentence:

However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus.

I don't think that we're there yet, but I do think that we're heading towards a consensus that as a general rule, television episode article names should follow the same disambiguation guidelines as other article names. The question is whether there is a way to keep this as a general guideline, while still acknowledging the concerns of those who feel that "consistency" is an important value in article naming. That's how we'll turn this into a genuine consensus. Anyone got any ideas? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Josiah, I agree with you that the general guideline is a good one, but it should allow flexibility for those cases where it's leading to something inconsistent. The wording that I recommended adding to the Naming conventions page under "Episodes" [10] would result in a paragraph that says, "Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g.

Lost may use different formats. When in doubt, it is best to make new episode articles consistent with the practice that is already in existence for that program." How does that sound? --Elonka

00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We may end up there, but I'd still like us to try for a more — irony of ironies — consistent approach. A guideline that says "certain shows may use different formats" weakens itself, and I'd rather we had a guideline that could actually, y'know, guide. That said, if we can't come to a stronger consensus, what you've proposed works as a descriptive guideline of what actually happens on Wikipedia, and I'd be OK with it as a fall-back position. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to chime in - again - I don't think anyone here to simply reaffirm the current guideline. They're here to decide whether to apply the current guideline to the Lost episode articles. Let's please not suddenly say, "Oh well, I guess the guideline will stay the way it is - okay, so let's see if anyone wants an exception for Lost". They don't. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it all seems pretty okay to me. I've made comments to those whose votes may been misinterpreted in hopes that they'll return to correct any perceived mistake. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion

Please forgive me but I have not read the 66 KB discussion thus far. I would suggest that disambiguation be done as necessary but "Title (series episode)" be created as a redirect regardless. My reason is simple: when writing episode lists or cross-linking episodes you can guarantee that you have not made an ambiguous link which can be absurdly prevalent when episodes have common names like Genesis (of which there are no less than 5 episodes named this). It is nigh impossible to auto-disambiguate a link and it is a much better visitor experience to skip through a redirect (which requires no extra work by the visitor) than to be faced with a dab page, or worse, the wrong article completely. Always having "Title (series episode)" whether it is the actual article or a redirect is the best choice from the perspective of a reader.

So, as long as "Title (series episode)" gets me to the correct article...I don't care what is decided above. Cburnett 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good idea. I could support this: keep the article at the name that follows general Wikipedia guidelines, but always create a redirect with "Title (series episode)". Is this the compromise solution I was looking for above? If so — wow, that was quick. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I kinda figured that was a given... —Wknight94 (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have officially been made to feel dumb! you sir are a genius! This would be a perfect solution -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the way the Lost articles have always been - or maybe that's just because of the move battles that have been going on. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea as well. Depending on whether the name is unique or not:

Unique: EpisodeTitle is article; EpisodeTitle (SeriesName), EpisodeTitle (episode) and EpisodeTitle (SeriesName episode) are all redirects

Non-unique: EpisodeTitle (SeriesName episode)* is article; EpisodeTitle is disambig; EpisodeTitle (SeriesName)* and EpisodeTitle (episode) are redirects.

* - Swap these two around if consensus goes that way. -- Chuq 02:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Always making the redirect would solve one of the problems claimed by the people wanting to deviate from the existing policy, and redirects are cheap. Even though I think pre-emptive dabbing is bad, making a redirect for any reasonable search term is good. Within articles readers will never see the dabbing because the links will be piped, so the consistant look will be there on tables and nav boxes. The reasoning behind minimizing the dabbing is to keep Wikipedia elegant and simple. Seeing no dab link to a dab just seems weird, but dab redirecting to no dab is definitely done, because recoding the pages that link to a redirect requires more server space than letting a redirect sit there. Jay32183 04:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason that we can't just do this with redirects, is because the title that displays at the top of the page, or in a category, is the "primary" title. To explain why this would be a problem, look here:

WP:POINT, and I wish more people would see it for the disruption that it is. --Elonka

06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is more to Wikipedia than just articles about Star Trek episodes. Sure, all the entries in the category page have the same parenthetical disambiguation, satisfying some bizarre fetish for things to line up on category pages, but it makes Wikipedia as a whole more inconsistent, hard to use, and unpredictable, not less. You should consider the what's best for the project as a whole, and not what's best for the little corner that you care about. What Wikipedia needs are articles whose titles follow a consistent, project-wide system for disambiguation, not a warren of exceptions and loopholes that allow a group of obsessive fans to pack articles' titles with extraneous information where the only tangible benefit is merely an aesthetic one. Nohat 06:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I didn't know "we" were "only" discussing Star Trek episodes. Shannernanner 06:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Nohat. Furthermore, coming into the discussion when I did, I don't see any evidence of bad faith on anyone's part. And actually, whether one user may or may not be motivated by bad faith isn't really material to the discussion: a fairly wide spectrum of Wikipedians is now participating in the conversation, and that's a good thing. I, for one, have no desire to cause disruption on Star Trek pages. The Star Trek WikiProject has been notified of this discussion, and its members are welcome in this discussion. Personally, I don't think we need to start moving pages unless we get a clear consensus; indeed, moving pages now might be a violation of

WP:POINT. However, a broad discussion among Wikipedians — which this is — is not. Let's assume good faith and get on with working towards consensus, shall we? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs

) 07:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I really cannot see how the Star Trek point could be considered a sound argument. Wikipedia does encourage "common sense" exceptions to guidelines, but "I want to be different" is not a common sense reason. The exception is being made on the assumption that the existing policy has no purpose, but it does have a purpose. That purpose is to keep article titles simple, so that readers don't have difficulty getting into the article. No sound reason has been presented at all why any exception should be made against that reasoning in episode articles. Readers should not be able to get all the information they need to know out of a title, if they could then there would be no articles, only titles. Pointing out that no one complained until recently is definitely not a good point; people are syaing something now, deal with it now. Also, there was never any reason given as to why Star Trek was an exception to begin with, Ned was completely right to remove that from the guideline page. It confused me the first time I read that. I thought "What makes Star Trek so special?" and it turns out the answer is nothing. There's no reason Star Trek should be treated differently as there's nothing different about it from other tv series that makes the existing guideline not act exactly the same. Jay32183 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Page moves do not make something "unstable". I started to move pages per these guidelines, something I feel is totally acceptable even with the current discussion. To get as upset as you are over this is far more disruptive than the moves themselves. Did those page moves hurt anyone? I just can't understand how you feel this is hurting anything, at all. Where is the great injustice, the disruption, the negative side effect? I checked for double redirects on all of those page moves, so in all reality... nothing "bad" happened at all. Doing nothing does not make something stable, and doing something does not make something unstable. The discussion on this very page continues to back this all up, and you've failed to show how this is harmful or disruptive.

Second, calling my edits vandalism is immature, rude, and downright disrespectful. I find this highly ironic coming after your absurd accusations on my talk page. I've fully explained my reasons for the change, and many other users on this talk page have agreed that the Star Trek example was a bad addition. Again, you attack me personally by calling my efforts "attacks". Who am I attacking? What do I have to personally gain from any of this? This is so bizarre, before this I thought of you as a really nice editor and wouldn't have thought something like this would become a dispute. You dug through my edit history to yell at me for using the word "fuck" in the edit summary for The Diarrhea Song. Why can't you just discuss this without trying to drag people into the mud? -- Ned Scott 07:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ned, even though I agree that the Star Trek example was a bad precedent, I personally would not advise making those moves now. We're heading towards a clear consensus, but we're not quite there yet, and it would be better to wait until everyone is either on board with this, or at least knows that it's coming. Just my 2¢ worth. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I had started the page moves when I thought this discussion was going to blow over, and I mean no offense to anyone when I say that. The pages were being moved before this RfC was taking place and the discussion I was in was still Lost-based. Also Category:Star Trek: Voyager episodes is not the right cat, you mean to talk about Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes (ironically, there is one article without a disambig title in Voyager, done by some other user back in May). I've clearly stopped after seeing that ... well.. we'd be here for a while. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Ned — didn't mean to rebuke you for something you weren't doing. It's hard to see page moves, since they don't show up in contribs and you've got to go to the log page, or check the individual article. I

assumed that Elonka was accurate in her description of what was happening. Mea culpa. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs

) 07:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to make it look like this entire discussion is "Ned's fault," but for the record, a history of Ned's page moves can be seen here: [13]. He has been engaging in multiple non-consensus moves on both the Lost articles and Star Trek articles, along with edit wars, to the point where the Lost guidelines page is protected [14], progress after a unanimous mediation resolution has been stalled, and, as we can see, there's a major firestorm here at WP:NC-TV. Aside from the multiple non-consensus moves, a further look at Ned's contrib history shows that he's been going through redirect pages and blanking them [15] and then re-creating them a few seconds later [16] so as to "lock" his moves, making them undoable except with an admin's intervention. And since Ned brought it up, yes, by all means take a look at User_talk:Ned_Scott#Civility, where confirmation can be seen that multiple users have been telling him to calm down, and to stop the disruption and incivility.[17] --Elonka 08:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Piling on more personal attacks really does make your point so much better. I've already linked to that section on my talk page, and I believe it speaks for itself. Three editors who disagreed with me in disputes decided to pile on. I invite anyone to actually look into those discussions and they will clearly see that being civil really hasn't been an issue. My dispute with Matthew was removing a "goal" from

Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Guidelines for "low" and "high" resolution

. If you would like to point out where I was uncivil with them then please do.

The little revert war on the Lost episode guideline page wasn't really the best thing to do, but you were just as much apart of that as I was. Again, I continue to point out specifically, the mediation NEVER ONCE COMMENTED ON NAMING CONVENTIONS FOR EPISODE ARTICLES. It was not apart of the mediation, and it was not the results of a consensus. How many times do I have to repeat that?

I've already explained myself about the Star Trek articles. And, as I've pointed out, I'm not the only one who's moved those articles, and I'm clearly not the only one who thinks their naming is in error. I only moved those articles when I thought this issue was just being dragged out and would blow over. Since this has become a bigger debate I have not moved any Star Trek or Lost articles, yielding to the discussion.

I did intentionally move articles and then edit the redirect to prevent an undo. Again, wasn't probably the best thing to do at the time, but in all fairness you did the exact same thing to all the other articles I didn't touch. As it stand now no Lost episode article can be freely moved back or forth, a childish move that both of us made in the heat of a debate. I apologies for that, I was wrong, but I won't take your blame too.

I'm done defending myself. I've made mistakes in how I approached this dispute, probably because I didn't even think highly of the dispute. None the less, the arguments and statements presented are still completely valid, no matter how flawed an editor I may or may not be. When you get into a debate that (for some strange reason) gets this heated you will find people like Elonka who will try to drag your name through the mud just because they disagree with you. Weeks before this, while I was still on Elonka's good side, she gave me a barnstar. I don't really think my editing habits have changed much in that time, but her attitude towards me sure did change when I disagreed. -- Ned Scott 09:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds like we're all reaching a group hug point here so let's let this particular thread die before it gets nastier. Let's leave all of the articles and redirects the way they are for now in the hopes this whole discussion comes to some conclusion (if such a thing is possible). It's beneficial to have them all locked at the moment - and I'd unlock them if I thought otherwise. In cases like this, two or three people always feel the urge to declare the discussion concluded and all of a sudden a wild move war breaks out. Ordinarily, I'd come down on intentionally blocking page moves - and I will be happy to unblock them myself when this discussion is concluded - but, in this case, it turns out to be helpful. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wknight94, I realize that you are a fairly new admin, so I just wanted to doublecheck: You do realize that using your admin tools to get involved in any way in this issue, would be unethical, and a complete violation of

administrator policy? You are welcome to participate in this discussion as a normal editor, and you're even welcome to get angry and disagree -- but as soon as you start threatening to take advantage of your admin access to push your own agenda, you would be out of line. I sincerely hope that you are not considering this, and that you will abide by the answer that you gave when your adminship was being debated a couple months ago, where you yourself said, I don't believe in admin's using admin powers to resolve their own disputes. Even when the powers are used appropriately, it gives the appearance of impropriety. Whichever way this discussion goes, for or against your point of view, I would hope that you would realize that it would be better for any necessary actions to be taken by a completely noninvolved admin. --Elonka

17:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one intentionally editing redirects solely to block page moves. I'm also not the one shifting the same discussion from location to location in the hopes of shaking the opposition. You should probably leave the Wikipedia ethics lectures to someone else. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh...iIf I may inject here, creating a redirect doesn't pervent a move to that title. For example, the article "

Yep. And yet somehow, each of the current Lost episode redirects happen to have a second minor edit to them, e.g. [18], [19], [20]... But I'm sure someone whose user page says they wish to be an admin someday would never do that on purpose so let's

WP:AGF. —Wknight94 (talk

) 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to ask about this comment saying disambiguating all of the titles "shows that they are part of a seires (sic)". The only place the disambiguated names would all be seen at once is in the category — but, by definition, just being in the category shows they are in a series! Folks in opposition to question 1 above apparently want to use disambiguation to do categorization. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you there. in a similar vein, insisting that the names always contain "(SeriesName episode)" is like showing that the episodes cannot stand alone by themselves, they must be regarded as part of the whole. Does this mean they should just all be merged into "SeriesName (season x)?" There are sites out there like http://www.lostpedia.com which we could just link to. Of course it would be sad to see all the effort put into the articles to disappear.

This is one of the good things about 24 (TV series) - due to the nature of the show, there is an episode called "2 p.m. - 3 p.m." every season, and that episode is intrinsically linked to the rest of the episodes of that series. As a result, 24 episodes do not have individual articles, just season articles, and everyone seems happy with that! -- Chuq 04:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to bet that most people don't have a dang clue what an individual episode is named in a long running TV series. Can you name all of the simpsons episdoes by heart?? I am a huge fan amd can only name a few.. Take a look at this from a readers stand point, rather then an editors.. Your wandering through the episodes and the titles all have (Series) after them, until you hit one. You would be disoriented for a moment as you wonder if you accidently clicked something else. You figure out you didn't but you would be mad that there wasn't consistancy with in the article group. I am just trying to make wikipedia easier to use for the readers..EnsRedShirt 09:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it works like that. What we're trying to say is that the articles just are not "floating around" like this. Most readers will find the episode article via a List of episodes article, a category, or a direct link from another article. This is how the vast majority of us come to such articles, and the actual title of the article won't change this process at all (for the reader). -- Ned Scott 09:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It's the "wandering through" part where your argument breaks down. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are plenty of other "series" on Wikipedia which are not indicated as such in their articles' titles. If a reader were paging through the James Bond novels, they would go from

Help! (album)

. Nobody worries about whether such a reader would be "disoriented" by the lack of consistency of the members of these series.

The fact that most people don't know the names of television episodes is immaterial, as I've said before. The job of a Wikipedia article's title isn't to provide context for the article's subject: the article does that. Nor is it to categorize them: the category system does that. The job of the title is to provide a file name that's clear, accurate, and unambiguous. Just because most readers won't know the names of episodes of The Simpsons is not an argument for moving Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire to Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire (The Simpsons episode). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said Josiah! -- Chuq 23:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. — Serge 16:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, who wants to decide whether this discussion is concluded? We've had two reverts at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) today so folks are apparently getting antsy. The noise has died down a bit here too. I'm not going to be the one to do anything drastic (and I never intended to, Elonka) but this is a little nudge. :) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep.. couldnt agree with you more.. definitly a consensus for the suffix . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing, Wknight. I was trying to sum up the arguments for my own benefit, and came up with this:

The solution must:

• Allow readers to easily find the article in question
• Allow other readers to easily find other articles with the same name

It would be preferrable to have a solution which:

• Does not create an exception to
  WP:D
• Allows linked lists of episodes to be formatted alike
• Provides a predictable format for editors to use when creating links
• Establishes a consistent naming convention which can be used by all TV shows

It would be nice to have a solution which:

• Provides series context within the article name
• Causes episode articles to be named consistently in watchlists and category lists

In my mind, Cburnett's suggestion above meets all but the "it would be nice" criteria, and thus is the closest we've come to a consensus. I think it is extremely important for us to realize that we are attempting to create a guideline here, and as such, it would be perfectly appropriate for individual TV shows (Star Trek, Lost) to propose and adopt exceptions to it based on consensus among those shows' editors. It seems to me that those exceptions should be addressed and discussed on project pages for individual shows, and not here. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 18:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Great summary, Toby. --Elonka 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a slight problem with what you've said about exceptions. Wikipedia recommends "common sense" exception. I want to do it differently is not a "common sense" exception. "Common sense" exceptions arise from special cases. There has been nothing to suggest that any tv series is a special case from the rest or that tv episode articles are a special case from any other article. Basically, you can't be deifferent for the sake of being different, especially when complaining about consistency. The redirects are a good solution to handle the editors' problem of not knowing which format each link should take. Consistency in linked lists was never a problem because all the links are piped anyway, same with navboxes. Finding of articles would come from other articles if readers did not already know the name of the episode, searching won't help. The "would be nice" things are things that are mostly selfish and overly obsessive. Categories don't need to be "pretty" and editors should know what's on their watchlists, not in the sense that anyone can name everything they are watching, but in the sense that if you see an article title they know what the article is. Jay32183 19:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, this whole discussion should be carried over to the Lost case in particular. It was pretty clear from the discussion as well as notes leading up to the discussion that Lost was the series at issue here. Let's not use TobyRush's exception clause(s) above to jump back to the Lost discussion and start over. The ties between the two are obvious enough that starting over is not necessary. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding exceptions: I actually agree with you, Jay32183, and I didn't actually say anything about "I want to do it differently" vs. "common sense." If the editors of an individual TV show propose an exception to this guideline, there would need to be common-sense justification for that exception, and that should be sussed out in the good-faith discussion of the proposal.

WP:D itself is a guideline

(not a policy), and my remarks above about exceptions were only meant to point out that TV:NC falls in the same category. In other words, if the Star Trek folks feel that they have a rationale for not following TV:NC, a consensus-building discussion should take place there. And since this is Wikipedia, we're all invited. :)

Regarding the "it would be nice" section: How about "Some editors think it would be nice to have a solution which:"? As I mentioned, these are the criteria which are not met by Cburnett's proposal. I, for one, am okay with that, especially if it means achieving consensus. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My point about the "it would be nice" parts was that we don't need to go out of our way to meet those. If a decent proposal happened to, then great. But let's not go overboard. Jay32183 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Although there is still vocal dissent from a few editors, I think that there is a broad consensus for Cburnett's suggestion. I think we're ready to put it on the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with this being a recommendation for -all- episode articles. I think this is fine for something like Lost where a WikiProject is involved, but it's simply overkill for most cases. -- Netoholic @ 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur. For cases where few or none of the episodes would need dabbing (Category:Friends episodes), let's not make people feel they have no choice but create redirects - because that's what will happen. How about simply "Editors are free to create redirects with..."? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, no need to force it. But allowing it makes it easier for some editors. Jay32183 21:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "Editors are encouraged to create redirects with..."? That way we're not suggesting it's mandatory, but we show that it is approved. After all, redirects are cheap. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with that. That way editor's that need it, get it, and editors who don't, aren't forced to do any extra work. Jay32183 21:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, thank you very much for your efforts here. However, I'm a bit confused as to what you mean when you say, "put it on the page." If you mean your summary that Toby listed above, I am fully in support. However, if you mean Cburnett's suggestion, I am not. Could you please clarify, so that we can wordsmith the parts that are causing confusion? Or if we'd like an example of proposed wording, my suggestion is that in the "Episodes" section, we expand the paragraph to say, "Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g.

Lost may use different formats. When in doubt, it is best to make new episode articles consistent with the practice that is already in existence for that program." --Elonka

21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very much against this wording. It implies there is something special about Star Trek and Lost. The only evidence presented that they are special is that the editors don't like the guideline, which is not a common sense exception. If there were actually something special that made the naming covention not work properly, then an exception would make sense. Jay32183 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I considered that to be an acceptable fallback position in case there was not sufficient consensus for a more general guideline. My reading of the discussion is that there is a broad consensus for Cburnett's suggestion, with only a few dissenters (notably, yourself and Matthew Fenton). There comes a time in any policy-building process when one must fish or cut bait; I judged that time to have come. I may have been too hasty, but I still think that there is quite broad support for Cburnett's compromise, as currently worded on the guideline page. It is not always possible to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties; I think that this one is as close as we're going to get. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A guideline that ends with "...but, if any single editor feels their case is different, they can feel free to shift back into free-for-all mode and ignore this guideline" is not a guideline. That's anarchy. Anarchy was clearly not the consensus here. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The core of this whole dispute is to not have actual articles with disambig titles when disambig is not needed. Redirects are fine, but the article itself should only disambig when necessary. As it stands now Lost nor Star Trek have a rational reason to be exempt from this. We will not put in an exemption into this guideline for Lost or Star Trek at the very least. Elonka, you disagree with this, and it seems you will to your dying breath, but get over it. -- Ned Scott 21:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If it would help us to reach a more complete consensus, we could add a sentence like TobyRush suggested above. Another alternative could be:

Some WikiProjects have previously established guidelines that encourage consistent use of disambiguating phrases. This guideline neither supercedes nor is superceded by these WikiProject guidelines.

How's that, Elonka? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is actually what has gotten me so fusterated about this situation. The idea that a WikiProject with weak rational can make contradicting guidelines is a very bad idea. Again, I point out that this was never a consensus of WikiProject Lost or the mediation case about Lost episodes, but even if it was there's still not a valid reason for exception. -- Ned Scott 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Josiah, I agree that sometimes consensus cannot get 100% approval, but I think it's important to ensure that we're at least trying for it. In other words, I don't think it's appropriate to start a thread and say, "We have consensus," and then two hours later make major guideline changes. We're obviously still discussing this issue, plus we also need to give other "infrequent" editors time to weigh in, rather than just listening to the voices of those who are posting multiple times per day. I would also point out that the above poll should not be given any "consensus" weight, since its wording was obviously being changed multiple times throughout the course of the poll.

What I would recommend, since this is obviously such a controversial issue, is that we agree on potential new wording for the guideline, and then present it as such, here on the talk page, with a new section entitled "Guideline addition/change". This is how I've seen other such major changes debated in other parts of Wikipedia. Then we let that discussion run for a week, and make sure everyone's had a chance to read it and think about it, and/or suggest wording changes. If we're all in agreement at the end of the week, then we put it into the guideline. If not, we can follow one of the other suggestions in

WP:DR

.

Getting back to the suggested sentence, I would change it a bit so it doesn't just look like a grandfather clause. How about: "Some WikiProjects may have separate guidelines for a different style of episode title, such as the consistent use of disambiguating phrases even when not absolutely required. This guideline neither supercedes nor is superceded by these WikiProject guidelines, and changes to the titles of those WikiProject's episodes should be debated within those respective communities." --Elonka 22:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Agian, you're creating a special case where no special case exists, you just aren't naming your special cases. In order for a common sense exception to occur there has to be a common sense distinction. In terms of the existing policy being applied to the title of any individual episode article, all individual episode articles are identical. Common sense dictates that identical situations be treated the same. Jay32183 22:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At the very least, a clause would be needed saying that such decisions need to be made outside of the particular project. Otherwise, you're encouraging the formation of splinter factions and mini-Wikipedias. You end up with ridiculous things like every article related to the band Heart has a heart character in the article name because a bunch of overzealous Heart fans had a vote one day. As much as I hate the "professional" word being thrown around here, the "professional" look of Wikipedia is dependant on the overall Wikipedia following given guidelines which don't include project-specific exceptions like what exists here. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Wknight... I think those decisions should be made within the project in question. There are no closed clubs on Wikipedia; if you found that the Heart fans were pulling this kind of stunt, you could make yourself part of the discussion toward revising the Heart guidelines to be match the standard practice. (And call me... I'll support you!)

That said, though, I don't really see any reason to talk about any exceptions on TV:NC; the universal rule is that justifiable exceptions to guidelines are always okay. It seems to me that there needs to be a consensus-seeking discussion over at the Lost and Star Trek WikiProjects; if those discussions reach consensus that the exceptions are justified, then it can be posted on their respective NC pages. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

But I don't have any Heart articles on my watchlist. Do you? For all we know, that discussion is already underway and only Heart fans know about it! —Wknight94 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any on my watchlist either. But it seems to me that Wikipedia (pretty successfully, I might add) operates on the principle that there are more editors striving to maintain the standards than those who would wish otherwise. So given the number of people who do have Heart articles on their watchlist, at least one of them should find that stunt a bad idea and call attention to it.

And, by the way, I just

behaving over there. :) --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍

 › 23:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh. And yes, Toby brings up a good point about the lack of closed discussions. In my experience, Wikipedia is pretty good at self-regulating itself. For example, earlier this year there were concerns that decisions were being made at the "Polish Wikipedian notice board" (especially about naming conventions) that seemed to go against other Wikipedia guidelines such as

Use English. That particular group had organized themselves into a consistent voting block, and were working their way through dozens of different articles around Wikipedia, moving them to non-English names. This became a dispute for awhile, until it was pointed out that anyone could participate in the discussions on that board, not just the Polish members of Wikipedia. So other editors from different points of view added the noticeboard to their watchlists, and the "voting block" nature of the group got evened out. In terms of this discussion about television episode naming conventions, though my own initial interest in this discussion was via the Lost articles, at this point, I'm honestly trying to come up with guidelines that can be helpful all over Wikipedia. As Wikipedia grows (and we're at around the 1.465 million article mark, last I checked, and doubling every six months), there are going to be thousands of television-related articles over the place. Many of them can and should use similar formats, yes, but every so often there are going to be reasons for good faith exceptions, and this Guideline should be written to allow for that. Ultimately, I keep in mind that the vast majority of editors working on their separate sections of Wikipedia, are good faith individuals who are here to improve Wikipedia, not to damage it. Wikipedia will grow more smoothly if guidelines are used for their intention, which is to give guidance, rather than to rigidly enforce rules which may not make sense in all situations. And lastly, yes, if any subgroup of editors started insisting on putting little hearts in article titles, give me a call, too, as I agree that that would be a Bad Thing, and I'd happily participate in that discussion to throw in my $0.02.  :) --Elonka

00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

All guidelines are like that by default, and there is no need to note that reasonable exception can be made to anything. That being said, a good deal of this debate was done in a Lost-specific discussion, and not a lot has changed. If you want us to change talk pages, then ok, but it won't really change anything. And there's no such thing as a "good faith exceptions", only reasonable exceptions. Exceptions need to have reasons and shouldn't be just assumed. I made that mistake originally by assuming that there had to be a good reason behind the Star Trek example, which was why I was originally in support of your position. Then I find out that it was added for no reason at all. Unless we can put such an example in a reasonable context then it shouldn't be included. As far as Lost goes, there has yet to be a reasonable argument to support "always disambig", but there has been reasonable argument to follow existing naming conventions.

If two people are working together on something non-controversial, then yes, they should be able to be

good faith in formatting articles in a way that they believe makes the most sense for their particular case. This doesn't mean going wild and putting the "External links" section at the top of the article, but it does mean making good faith exceptions to certain guidelines, such as in this "suffixes" issue. As I've pointed out before, I see no damage that's been caused to Wikipedia by the consistent system at Category:Star Trek episodes. The only concern seems to be, "That's not how we usually do it," which isn't a good enough reason to go in and disrupt those categories. See Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Elonka

18:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, making page moves is not a disruption. A category of Star Trek articles not having any activity does not make it "stable", and to make page moves there doesn't hurt anyone or disrupt anything. Page move wars, which both you and I have been guilty of, are harmful, but that's why we're having this discussion, so we'll only have to move things once. -- Ned Scott 19:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiprojects don't have special authority. Even when there is a large group of people who all agree, it doesn't put them above wikipedia-wide guildlines (which an even larger group of people should have agreed to.) And that's assuming there is indeed a large group of people, who all agree. Which is all too often not the case. A lack of complaints from the rest of the project doesn't mean agreement. It could just mean the rest of the project didn't notice, didn't care, or did their part of AGF and assumed the person making the changes was following guildlines.

There is no such thing as a "good faith exception"

WP:AGF

simply means any prelimarily assumptions are to be made in good faith. It doesn't mean to stubbornly stick to assumptions when facts become avaliable. When an exception to a rule is made, we AGF - that is, we assume there is a valid reason for the exception. However, if upon request, the people making the exception are unable to provide a valid reason, then sticking to the assumption becomes a case of stupidity. So yes, of course we start off assuming good faith, but then if the facts prove us wrong, we stop believing those prelimary assumptions.

You seem to like consistency a lot. Has it not occured to you that unless Star Trek episodes is the only thing someone reads on wikipedia, this kind of exceptions to general naming schemes will actually reduce consistency for all other readers? --`/aksha 06:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me you have misunderstood the concept of

WP:POINT; an example of such is not, per your example, moving all the Star Trek episodes per the proper naming convention guidelines, but moving all the Star Trek episodes from [EpisodeName] (Star Trek episode) to [EpisodeName] (Star Trek gobbledy-goo) to "illustrate the point" that consistent article disambigs are not necessarily helpful. Shannernanner

12:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many bad situations are caused by people jumping right to #5. -- Netoholic @ 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is correct, Netaholic, and indeed it's the order of business suggested at

WP:EPISODE. And perhaps that guideline should be enforced more strictly than it is. However, since people are creating individual episode articles, it would be nice if those articles were named in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. That's what we're working on here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs

) 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Over all, it's not the most important issue, but this is

WP:TV-NAME.. -- Ned Scott

22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose there's a place to propose merges that can result in binding decisions (like the way AfD produces a final binding decision on whether to delete or not)? --`/aksha 01:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

On this episode article issue, I mostly agree with Netoholic. When we start documenting a particular series, we shouldn't immediately create individual episode articles, but instead should first start with a basic overview page, which perhaps contains a brief summarized list of episodes. Then as this grows, the list can be split off to a "List of episodes" page. Then if the series is shown to be definitely notable, that list can start hubbing out to individual episodes, starting with the most notable ones. Where I think I disagree though, is that only the most notable episodes should have individual pages, and that others should be kept strictly in summary form. I think that if a series is already at the point of creating individual episode pages, it becomes very difficult to decide which episodes are "page-worthy" and which aren't, so if someone really wants to go to the trouble of creating a page on every episode at that point, it's not going to hurt anything. But the series should definitely start at the "one-page-fits-all" point, rather than immediately jumping to a later step. --Elonka 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's more like #4 above is a transitional step (usually) to #5. I think there are a few situations a series would have only a few separate episode articles (M*A*S*H is a good example, 11 seasons, and only a handful of episodes are of note). That is not the most common case, though, and I think most series should stop at #2 or #3. -- Netoholic @ 09:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the old poll got so tangled, I recommend we close it, and discuss our next step, such as working on a potential new paragraph for the Guideline, by finding wording that everyone agrees with. If we have obvious consensus, it can go into the guideline. If we don't have consensus, then we work on changing the wording until we do. For example, in other guidelines where there was controversy, the way I've seen it handled, is that in that particular section of the guideline, it simply says, "Controversy exists about whether or not action A or action B is better."

I especially liked TobyRush's summary up above, which did a good job of reflecting the opinions here, so I started with that and put it into more of a paragraph form. Here's my suggestion, but feel free to suggest different wording:

Potential new guideline wording

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).

How's that? Does this address everyone's concerns? --Elonka 23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a need to change the current guideline at all, actually. When someone comes up with an exception that is necessary for a good reason (unlike the Lost exception proposal), then add it. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No. At the risk of sounding uncivil. no no no no a thousand times NO. You are saying the EXACT SAME THING over and over, and we keep telling you no. -- Ned Scott 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph looks fine. The rest just seems to be an excuse to let people who don't prefer the chosen method to make exceptions, which makes the whole thing a waste of time. In some cases, certain series.. no no no! There is absolutely NO logical reason why one series should use a different format to another series, and why any TV series should use a different format to Wikipedia in general. The only reasons seem to be "it is already like that" and "the WikiProject <TV series> editors like it that way". The advantages and disadvantages listed are not specific to any one show; and as such, different shows shouldn't stray from them. it becomes easier to link between episodes .. no, not if you edit articles about different shows and every show has a different format. specific subject areas are easier to see in editor watchlists - this is what "shared watchlists" (such as this) are for. -- Chuq 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Exceptions are not just discouraged, they are against guildline. If there is a very good reason, then an exception may be okay. But there isn't. Why do we even need a guildline change? Our current problem looks more like it's about whether or not to allow arbitrary exceptions.

It's convient to include series context with an article's title? No...it really isn't. Shortest title means less typeing for the person naming the title, for people wanting to reach it from url edit or the go box, and for people trying to link to the article. Titles are titles, that's it.

So no, i don't think it really addresses anyone's concerns except maybe your own. And no, don't like it, for those reasons and all the ones already pointed out. --`/aksha 01:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I may have been premature in my

bold inclusion of Cburnett's suggestion into the guideline. However, is there anyone besides Elonka who has a problem with it? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs

) 01:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Not sure it's necessary but it's also not objectionable IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's an idea that might interest some people. I may be wrong but can't you actually add a category to a redirect? Then the redirect appears in the category listing. If you then remove the category from the article itself, all you would see is the redirect in the category listing, not the article itself. I think I read somewhere where this same issue had come up and this method was proposed as a solution. I have no idea where that was though... Thoughts? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

won't work. sorry to put it so bluntly. The whole point of a category is so someone reading an article, when reaching the bottom, can get to the category with lots of other similar aricles. If you remove the category from the article itself, it defeats the purpose since readers will never get to it. Redirects can be added to categories, but someone clicking on a redirect will never notice the category because they...get redirected. For it to work, we'd have to add all the articles into a category that redirects to the category with the redirects (not sure if category redirecting is even possible), and someone clicking on a redirect would then be redirected to the article. Way too messy if you ask me. --`/aksha 02:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Was a longshot. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression all Cburnett suggested was that redirects also be created so that whichever naming convention was used for articles, both would "work". This is fine, and will work quite happily with:

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.

-- Chuq 04:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still very much against (NameofSeries episode) when the word episode isn't actually necessary. If we strictly followed the dab guidelines as already written the word episode should only be added if not adding episode creates an ambiguous article title, such as when an episode is named after a character or setting that also has an article. I very much agree with that because it creates the simplest, shortest disambiguation. Jay32183 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets look at it from another angle. Assuming no knowledge about an article, what would a title with "(Lost)", "(Medium)", "(24)", "(House)" or "(Oz)" indicate? Not much. So whats wrong with "(episode)"? That tells you exactly what it is. It also aligns with standard naming conventions - you will find we have articles about people ending in "(politician)" or "(musician)" rather than "(Australia)" or "(Canada)". -- Chuq 06:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the poll that took place the last week or so is essentially saying that the guideline is fine the way it is. Frankly, I'm not sure what the purpose of this new section is. Enough with the

It looks to me like the poll is showing a preference for (<seriesname> episode) which is different to what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) says. Why do you think it says the guideline is fine the way it is? -- Chuq 06:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the poll showing a preference for simply not using unneeded disambiguation, so the current guildline of using disambiguation only when needed is fine. Meaning there's no need to change it or debate about what form of disambiguation to use.

Although i do agree the "episode" is redundant for episode articles that do need the disambiguation. It simply adds on another layer of disambiguation. "Assuming no knowledge about an article, what would a title with "(Lost)", "(Medium)", "(24)", "(House)" or "(Oz)" indicate? Not much. So whats wrong with "(episode)"? That tells you exactly what it is." But the title of an article isn't supposed to serve the function of telling you what the article is. It's supposed to be a name, that's all. If titles were supposed to tell people what the article was about, we may as well be doing things like adding "(Chemical Element)" after articles like Astatine to tell non-chemists exactly what the article is. --`/aksha 08:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the "disambiguate only when necessary" part of it. It's the second part where the poll results differ from what the page currently says. Astatine doesn't require disambiguation, which is fine, but articles like Mercury (element) do have it. My point was that "Lost", "24", "House" and so on have much more common meanings than the TV shows, thus they don't do much to clarify the meaning/content of the article, which is the point of disambiguation. -- Chuq 08:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of the tag is to differentiate the article from other existing articles of the same name. It's not meant to add anything to the article. It's not a mini-summary of the article and it's not a part of the content. It should be the bare minimum required to distinguish any two existing articles of the same title. That's why we have

Mercury (Roman mythology) or Mercury (Roman god). Just because Lost, 24 and House have common meanings doesn't mean we have to address that in the article's title. Further, the most likely time the tag is important to a user would be in a dab page, where it's supposed to have a clarifying description such as "EpisodeName (Lost), an episode of the television series Lost

". That description sounds more like what you're talking about.

If we decide that the tags are meant to be descriptive (they're not), then we have to determine how descriptive -- is (Lost episode) enough? There was another TV show called Lost, after all. Should it be EpisodeName (Lost (2004 TV series) episode)? We should just stick with what works for the rest of Wikipedia: use the simplest disambiguation possible and avoid the issue entirely. -Anþony 11:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW yes, I was refuting the original post in this section asking for verbiage about exceptions to the guideline (sorry for the confusion). No such exception language is necessary. As far as how to disambiguate when it is necessary, I abstain on that part. That doesn't seem particularly standard anywhere. In the baseball section, some bios are dabbed with (baseball player), some just with (baseball), some with (pitcher), etc. I almost never bother messing with those because I don't find it particularly important. I tend to agree with using a little as possible to actually disambiguate - that's the final goal of suffix tags - but I'm not a zealot either way. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree — I don't really care that much whether the disambiguation tag says "episode" or not, although I tend to go with the shorter one. The important thing is that we don't encourage disambiguation tags when they're not necessary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

About guidelines and consensus

Per

This guideline clearly is controversial per the extreme objections to it and per Elonka’s above comments. A few people popping up after there friends reply saying “I AGREE”, “Me two!!”, “Yuperz! Me agrees as well.”, “Wow” I couldn’t agree more”, “Agree, agree, agree!” so does not cancel out the significant objections of others. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no such mindless agreements here, Matthew. The participants in this conversation have expressed reasons and support for their positions, and I have yet to see a fully reasoned objection to the current wording. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll use the term

false compromise again. The idea that 24 people need to meet 7 people halfway is very much false. We've listened (with surprising patience at multiple sites) to the objections and the resolution as I understand it is "leave it as it is". You can throw around red herrings about personal attacks and harassment all day if you want - the resolution still seems crystal clear to me. (Again, this is in regards to the exception verbiage which I believe is your chief issue). —Wknight94 (talk

) 21:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I also dispute the notion that those supporting the current wording are treating this as a "vote" or ignoring the concerns of the dissenters. There is a broad agreement, with a few vocal opponents. Wknight94 and others have given clear reasons about why it is not a good idea to include mention of "exceptions" in the guideline. If the objections were more widespread, I could support such a wording, but as it is there are only a few editors objecting, and they have not (in my view) sufficiently justified their arguments. WikiProject precedent is not a sufficient reason to formalize an exception to core Wikipedia guidelines. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, over and over again, any time a naming guideline for a particular area violates the basic naming conventions for Wikipedia, in particular

WP:D, controversy and conflict errupt. The only way to have a naming convention specific to some area not conflict with the basic naming principles is to have it apply only when a known ambiguity issue exists. The purpose of these area-specific conventions should be to specify what to do in a particular naming area when and only when there is an ambiguity situation to resolve, so that ambiguities are resolved in a consistent fashion. But please do not make the mistake of then using these ambiguity-resolving naming conventions on articles that don't even have an ambiguity issue to resolve; that's blatant and pointless violation of the general naming guidelines, and leads to conflict and controversy. Why advocate for that? --Serge

21:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"More specific naming guidelines should only apply in those cases where a known ambiguity issue exists." Where specifically is that said on one of the pages you linked to? --

Milo H Minderbinder

17:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not stated anywhere, and, so, we have endless bickering and consternation. It should say that somewhere so that we would not have all this conflict. --Serge 18:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that "trying to impose a naming convention that inherently violates fundamental general Wikipedia naming conventions only creates conflict." That's why the current wording of the guideline is an attempt to make certain that television episodes follow the general Wikipedia naming conventions, instead of being an exception to them. It's an effort to avoid future conflict. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood, and I support the current wording of the guideline for TV episodes for this reason. --Serge 19:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a TV episode article entitled

Lost and Star Trek are both great shows (well, I actually haven't seen Lost yet, so keep the spoilers away, please), but they're not helping us achieve consensus here. It seems to me that we should work toward consensus on a general guideline, and then take that guideline to individual shows and debate there whether or not the shows qualify as common sense exceptions. It's hard to focus on the merits of a general guideline when controversial exceptions keep getting thrown in, and I think it will help those individual discussions if we can create a general guideline and achieve broad consensus on it.

Regarding the second item: One of the reasons we chose against pre-emptive disambiguation was that the title of the article need not establish context (that's the job of the first line of the article itself). Therefore, the disambiguating phrase need only serve to identify the article among the other articles on the disambiguation page. If someone is looking for the article about Futurama article "The Sting," they will quickly determine that The Sting (Futurama) is what they're looking for, and not The Sting (1973 film). However, as Josiah pointed out above, Dalek (Doctor Who) would need to be expanded to Dalek (Doctor Who episode) to distinguish it from Dalek (Doctor Who race). --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 23:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Toby. We could use your and Josiah's logic and reason over at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (settlements). --Serge 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The first item, I have no objection to having an example, as long as that example has reasonable rational and context. To make an exception without this would create a loop hole and confusion. Having reasonable exceptions is something that is apart of all guidelines, and a lack of example in no way is an attempt to dispute that. If we have a reasonable example that is not misleading, then by all means include it. (this would not include the above example)

The second item, as I noted when I "voted" that I had no strong preference. Others have also listed their names under both, which I take it is also an indication of no strong preference? The poll itself seems pretty split there. The second item sounds like a no consensus issue. -- Ned Scott 23:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Ned: my discussion of a hypothetical series was merely for the benefit of our discussion here; I don't see any benefit of actually including it as part of the guideline. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 04:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Including the suggested language that exceptions are possible implies that there currently exists some series which qualifies as such an exception. Barring Wikipedians being picked up for the 2007 season, there are no series I'm aware of that merit a common-sense exception (that includes Star Trek). In the rare and hypothetical event that a show doesn't fit into the guidelines and seems like it should be an exception, I believe that the guideline should be updated to address the particularities of the series and obviate the need for an exception.

As for the

WP:D#Primary_topic. Clearly, Dalek (Doctor Who episode) needs the "episode" tag to differentiate it from Dalek, but only because anything less would be ambiguous. Category:Ninth_Doctor_episodes is a perfect example of the position I'm advocating, making proper use of all three possibilities: Dalek (Doctor Who episode) in the aforementioned case, (Doctor Who) when there are other articles unrelated to Doctor Who, and a plain title in general. -Anþony

23:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of not listing an example right now is that none exist. Stating that when exceptions need to be made they can be made is unnecessary as that is general policy. Until a situation exists that an exception needs to be made, there need not be an explanation for exception. If an exception actually arises then it can be listed with the reason for its exception being noted as well. Jay32183 00:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Toby is correct that the general notion of "reasonable exceptions" applies whether we make it explicit or not. However, making it explicit has the disadvantage of inviting such exceptions, whether they are reasonable or not. Perhaps if we understood the reasoning, if any, behind the established exception at Star Trek (and proposed exception at Lost), we would be better able to understand the argument for mentioning that exception in this guideline. As it is, the only reason I can see for the exception is "we've done it this way for a long time, and it hasn't hurt anyone." Precedent has a value, but a bad precedent can be overturned if better reasons present themselves. We've given the reasons why we feel the Star Trek example is a bad precedent; I have yet to hear the argument for why it might be a good precedent. I'd like to. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My bet is that, if an exception comes up, it will apply to more than one case. It will become part of the guideline, not an exception. It's evolution which, by definition, includes changes and exceptions. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Toby, I completely agree with what you said, thank you for summarizing.

May I also humbly suggest that we start this discussion from scratch? This page is getting awfully long, which is discouraging participation, plus the personal attacks make it difficult to

assume good faith. Also, I would very much like to see the poll closed, since it has been repeatedly invalidated by the multiple changes to its structure (and no, I'm not just saying that because I'm in the "minority," I would feel the same way even if in the majority). Also, before rushing to start a new poll, I would like to see us discuss suggested poll questions to make sure that we're in agreement on what is being polled, so that we don't repeat the mistake of rewriting a new poll while it's in-process. So, I recommend that we archive the entire discussion, including the poll, and make a fresh start? Can we at least get consensus on that much?  :) --Elonka

07:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. Making a new poll would be one thing (unnecessary, really, since it's just one form of data collection), but we are not starting discussion over from scratch. And please, referring to each other by name is NOT a personal attack. The poll's results are very still very much valid, and I'll personally volunteer to go to everyone's talk page to confirm their position and intended meaning. You're just avoiding the issues being brought up and keep trying to sneak in an exception. This is a case where we have consensus and a few editors are dragging their feet about this. So, no, we're not starting over, if anything we should be wrapping up this discussion and start requesting moves for the Lost articles. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Internet debates and Wikipedia's especially seem to be a question of endurance and who tires of arguing first. We should accept that we're never going to convince everyone for a true consensus, though there is a clear supermajority in favor of disambiguating only when necessary. -Anþony 11:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, you can archive the discussion part - the vast parts of repetition anyway - but the poll results stay right up on the top. If I recall correctly, Elonka, you were one of the people messing with the structure of the poll while it was going on, so it seems disingenuous for you to call it invalid. Everyone knew what was being discussed - we're not stupid. If you want to start some new poll regarding Lost specifically, it seems only fair for you to invite each one of the people that voted in this poll. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the advantage in restarting the discussion or having a new poll. If anyone feels that votes may have been recorded in error, due to the changing of the poll questions, Ned's kind volunteering should take care of that. Discussions have been made, opinions have been stated, and all but two active participants have agreed on a solution. I don't think that going through the whole process all over again will change anything. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if we understood the reasoning, if any, behind the established exception at Star Trek (and proposed exception at Lost), we would be better able to understand the argument for mentioning that exception in this guideline. - I don't think there is any reasoning. Star Trek's reason seems to be "it is already like that" and Lost's seems to be "Star Trek can do it, so why can't we". If you mention and allow exceptions, then anyone will just make an exception whenever they feel like it, which is the entire point of this discussion to decide on a single convention and stick by it. -- Chuq 12:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it easier to find a page with "episode" in its title, based on wikipedia's search? Is putting the word "episode" in the first sentence equivalent? What if you search for "csi episode"? Do we care about how the search results may change? -

Note that by using redirects we can get the exact same results. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as though this discussion is petering out and certainly has gone nowhere as far as explaining a Lost-specific exception to the guideline, I don't personally see a problem with bringing the Lost episode articles at question to

Maybe a good idea to wait, just a little. I can see this thing finishing up pretty soon now. --`/aksha 11:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, give it a few days, just to reduce tension. >Radiant< 12:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I don't see the two main holdouts agreeing to anything final anytime soon but I'll hold off as a courtesy. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to see if the reasons that have been given as justifications for WikiProject exceptions hold water. For the sake of presenting the arguments fairly, I will use Elonka's words, not my own. I see three classes of argument:

• Precedent: for example, the Star Trek episodes have been using a slightly different format for a long time, without a problem.
• Consistency: 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... and categories look more consistent.
• Context: it is convenient to include series context with an article's title... and specific subject areas are easier to see in editor watchlists.

Assuming these three classes are the primary reasons given, let's examine them one at a time.

• Precedent: for example, the Star Trek episodes have been using a slightly different format for a long time, without a problem.
  • Precedents are useful, but only if they have good reasons behind them. Furthermore, only decisions by Jimbo, the ArbCom and the Wikimedia Foundation Board are binding — beyond that, there are
    no binding decisions
    . If a consensus among Wikipedians is contrary to the decision of a WikiProject, the larger consensus should be followed. (It goes without saying that all WikiProject members are welcome in the larger decision-making process, and indeed the members of the Star Trek WikiProject have been invited to join this discussion.) Given this, the precedent has value only insofar as its reasoning can be explained. Which leads us to the remaining two arguments:

• Consistency: 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... and categories look more consistent.
  • This is an aesthetic judgment, and one that is not supported by any Wikipedia policy.
    A Fistful of Datas (TNG episode) when A Fistful of Datas
    is perfectly clear and unambiguous.
  • Furthermore, the "ease of linking" concern is adequately addressed by the recommendation to create redirects with the appropriate suffixes.

If I came upon a contextless link to, say, Adios Butler (a page I found by hitting "random article" a few times), I would have no idea what that was. But if I see a link to Adios Butler in a list of pacing horses on Harness racing, then I'll know that Adios Butler is a horse. My ignorance of the subject of horse racing is not a justification for renaming that article Adios Butler (horse).

From my point of view, the objections to these reasons are all much stronger than the reasons themselves. I would greatly appreciate any responses to these arguments, and any further reasons that I have missed. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a good summation of the argument. I'd add more but there doesn't seem to be anything else to say. Jay32183 21:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a succinct and articulately stated argument that would work as a much more general argument against the practice of "predisambiguation" (qualifying a title beyond the most common name used when no ambiguity issues are known) in any category of Wikipedia articles. Bravo! --Serge 21:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Another hole in the "easier to see in my watchlist" argument, which Chuq mentioned before, is that you can use the Related changes page as a pseudo-watchlist for a specific topic. For example, the Related changes for Category:Lost episodes would suffice for Elonka's needs, I think. You could even get more particular and create a userpage with only the articles you want to watch. -Anþony 21:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Under consistency, there is another important argument. I will copy some of my statements made previously here rather than restate them:

While it may provide a small benefit in remembering link names for those users who exclusively edit articles relating to Star Trek, for the rest of us, who are just as likely to link to a Star Trek episode as any other article, having a policy of preemptive disambiguation for Star Trek articles is just another dumb exception that has to be memorized and makes Wikipedia less consistent overall.

There is more to Wikipedia than just articles about Star Trek episodes. Sure, all the entries in the category page have the same parenthetical disambiguation, satisfying some bizarre fetish for things to line up on category pages, but it makes Wikipedia as a whole more inconsistent, hard to use, and unpredictable, not less. What Wikipedia needs is articles whose titles follow a consistent, project-wide system for disambiguation, not a warren of exceptions and loopholes.

And also, from the list of cons for allowing preemptive disambiguation:

1. Con: Rather than just clarifying the general naming convention, directly contradicts it
2. Con: Clutters the article namespace with unnecessary parenthetical disambiguations
3. Con: Confuses users who wonder what other things have this title because it has a parenthetical disambiguation
4. Con: Muddies the semantics of the article namespace with arbitrary additional attributes for a certain class of articles
5. Con: Is hard to remember for people who don't frequently link to Star Trek or Lost episodes
6. Con: Makes Wikipedia less consistent overall by increasing the complexity of the article naming conventions

Nohat 01:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I found this link at the village pump asking for outside opinions, so I'm not fully familiar with the background here, but if the debate is whether all articles on TV episodes should be titled "Episodename (seriesname episode)", or whether this should only be done when "Episodename" is already 'taken' by some other article - it seems clear to me that the formerlatter is preferred, both per Josiah's good summary of the arguments above, and per the Manual of Style. Redirects are a nice touch for compromise. >Radiant< 11:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• • You mean the latter is preferred, don't you? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. Tyop, sorry. >Radiant< 14:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My response:

Josiah: Just because you disagree with someone else's point of view, does not mean that it's a good idea to refer to their opinions as "not holding water," or "unreasoned." I think it would be better to try and get away from this polarizing view of "There's only one right way to do things, and anyone who disagrees is 'wrong.'" My own view on the matter is that there are *multiple* right ways to do things. To try and break down my reasoning by your categories though:

• Precedent: By the fact that hundreds of articles are created using the "suffix" method, it is clear that this is an intuitive and non-confusing method of titling episode articles. The only reason that has been given to change this method, is that it's "against the guidelines." That tells me not that we need to run through and change every one of these hundreds of articles, but that the guidelines need to be re-examined, to make sure that we're not just reacting in a kneejerk way to move articles to non-intuitive titles.

• Consistency: This word is being used by both sides in this debate. For those who are deadset against suffixes, consistency is being cited as a reason to enforce disambiguation "policy." but I would point out that
  WP:NC
  , which states, " Article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." In other words, in several cases, adding consistent suffixes to episodes within the same series seems to me to be more in accordance with the policy than the guideline.