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. |
|
Please vote for your preferred option, signing under one that's already there or adding your idea. One line per person please, and post replies in the talk section below.
Show Name (TV)
Show Name (television)
Show Name (TV series)
Show Name (television series)
Show Name (TV show)
Show Name (television show)
Show Name (series)
We have a variety of ways of disambiguating television series: Bottom (television), V (television series), Hercules (TV series), Jeremiah (series). I'd like to standardise this a bit. My preference, after discussion on Talk:Enterprise (series) is to use "series" as the disambiguator. Any objections before I go ahead and move some pages? -- sannse 21:21 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Something about this on one of the disamb or naming convention pages recently. needs to be cross-linked--
Tarquin 09:43 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Why add "TV" or "television" to the disambiguating text when there is only one thing by a particular name that could be a series? If there is a book, a movie and a series that all have the same name then (book), (movie) and (series) would be used as disambiguating text. There is no need for having extra information in (series) unless there were also two different types of series - such as a radio series. Then and only then does it make sense to have (television series) and (radio series). -- mav 01:14 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Does anyone have objections to "series" strong enough to ask me not to do the change? If so I'll drop it (I don't have very strong feelings about this, I'd just like to make things a little more consistant) -- sannse 19:26 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I agree "Series" is too ambiguous, for brevity surely TV Series is far more suitable and also memorable for wikipedians on the go. JasonM 17:20 30 Jun 2003 (GMT)
OK, so what about a miniseries? V is both a miniseries and a TV series. So would it be "V (TV series)" and "V (miniseries)"? Eisnel 09:46, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Current methods being used to disambig TV shows. Which is the best? Trying to get a straw poll to add a section to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, so feel free to add other ideas and vote -- Netoholic 05:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(Straw poll moved to top)
It seems to me that semantically, a disambiguator should be a category containing the thing it's disambiguating. Thus Foo (Bar), should mean that Foo is a kind of Bar. Thus TV show would be ok, but TV would not. Paul August 20:48, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
I've noticed that programmes are being moved from ...(television) to ... (tv programme) or similar. This seems rather silly to me. Because of the different spelling of program/programme and other matters like the British use of series etc.. it seems to me to be much more sensible to use a disambiguation qualifer that is relatively straightforward and not open to the inconsistency that will undoubtedly arise with the current qualifer. I notice that there was a vote on this page some time ago. I was not aware of it and I would like to re-open the vote. Mintguy (T) 22:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Actually I now see that this vote is quite recent. But why is it at the top of the page? I'm not quite clear whether this vote is current or not. If this issue is still being discussed (which appears to be the case), users should note be moving pages to and fro as the will takes them, and the fact that what appeears on the project page is only a draft document awaiting confirmation should be made clear. Mintguy (T) 22:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I see that the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions has been changed re. television names. Is this wording correct? Shouldn't there at least be a warning that the parentheticals are only used if disambiguation is necessary? Mackerm 15:14, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've reverted that section of that page to state that this is still being discussed. A lot of people were suprised about the sudden move of well established pages to new titles. Mintguy (T) 15:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(moved from User:Netoholic) Hello - just curious as to why you moved Nineteen Eighty-Four (television) to Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme). It seems a little defunct to me, as they're both pretty similar titles. Is this a general style guide issue that I need to keep in mind for any future TV show articles I may create? Angmering 21:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why are you moving televtion series articles to different names? And why sometimes programme and sometimes series? And are you planning on cleaning up any double redirects which result? Rick K 21:38, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
Is there a consensus I missed regarding this? Why are you changing all of these?
Mike H 03:23, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I would also like to know why you have moved Futurama (animated series) season 1. Is there something else named Futurama that is an animated series? You are only making the name more obscure, these sort of additions to titles should only be used to disambiguation. — マイケル ₪ 03:35, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
I can't believe you have the audacity to quote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) back to people when they question you moving pages when you are the sole contributor to that page. You can't just create a policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) all on your own and then go changing pages to conform with it willy nilly. Please see the talk page and please do not make any further moves until a consensus policy is decided. In the mean time I think you should return the pages you moved back to where they were. Mintguy (T) 08:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree. This vote was not publicized -- I didn't even know that it was happening until Netoholic started moving things without discussion. These moves should be rescinded and the vote start over from scratch, well publicized. Rick K 19:06, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
All right, I'll start a new poll. I figure that leaving the poll open for 3-4 weeks should be enough time to reach a consensus or at least a general agreement. I'll put a note about the discussion on Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Current surveys and Wikipedia:Village pump and let everyone who voted or discussed the naming before know about the poll on their talk pages - should it be mentioned anywhere else? - Sean Curtin 01:30, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
How should pages for individual episodes be named? This seems like something else that could be standardised. Some observed naming conventions:
In the case of Buffy and Alias the format is
<episode name> (<series name> episode)
In the case of The X-Files the format used is
<episode name> (<series name>)
In the case of The Simpsons and the various Star Trek's the format is
<episode name>
which leads to clashes with regular articles.
Someone has suggested on The Simpsons' talk page the format
<series name>/<episode name>
-- Cfailde 15:27, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
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. |
|
Please vote for your preferred option, signing under one that's already there or adding your idea. One line per person please, and post replies in the talk section below.
Show Name (TV)
Show Name (television)
Show Name (TV series)
Show Name (television series)
Show Name (TV show)
Show Name (television show)
Show Name (series)
We have a variety of ways of disambiguating television series: Bottom (television), V (television series), Hercules (TV series), Jeremiah (series). I'd like to standardise this a bit. My preference, after discussion on Talk:Enterprise (series) is to use "series" as the disambiguator. Any objections before I go ahead and move some pages? -- sannse 21:21 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Something about this on one of the disamb or naming convention pages recently. needs to be cross-linked--
Tarquin 09:43 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Why add "TV" or "television" to the disambiguating text when there is only one thing by a particular name that could be a series? If there is a book, a movie and a series that all have the same name then (book), (movie) and (series) would be used as disambiguating text. There is no need for having extra information in (series) unless there were also two different types of series - such as a radio series. Then and only then does it make sense to have (television series) and (radio series). -- mav 01:14 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Does anyone have objections to "series" strong enough to ask me not to do the change? If so I'll drop it (I don't have very strong feelings about this, I'd just like to make things a little more consistant) -- sannse 19:26 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I agree "Series" is too ambiguous, for brevity surely TV Series is far more suitable and also memorable for wikipedians on the go. JasonM 17:20 30 Jun 2003 (GMT)
OK, so what about a miniseries? V is both a miniseries and a TV series. So would it be "V (TV series)" and "V (miniseries)"? Eisnel 09:46, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Current methods being used to disambig TV shows. Which is the best? Trying to get a straw poll to add a section to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, so feel free to add other ideas and vote -- Netoholic 05:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(Straw poll moved to top)
It seems to me that semantically, a disambiguator should be a category containing the thing it's disambiguating. Thus Foo (Bar), should mean that Foo is a kind of Bar. Thus TV show would be ok, but TV would not. Paul August 20:48, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
I've noticed that programmes are being moved from ...(television) to ... (tv programme) or similar. This seems rather silly to me. Because of the different spelling of program/programme and other matters like the British use of series etc.. it seems to me to be much more sensible to use a disambiguation qualifer that is relatively straightforward and not open to the inconsistency that will undoubtedly arise with the current qualifer. I notice that there was a vote on this page some time ago. I was not aware of it and I would like to re-open the vote. Mintguy (T) 22:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Actually I now see that this vote is quite recent. But why is it at the top of the page? I'm not quite clear whether this vote is current or not. If this issue is still being discussed (which appears to be the case), users should note be moving pages to and fro as the will takes them, and the fact that what appeears on the project page is only a draft document awaiting confirmation should be made clear. Mintguy (T) 22:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I see that the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions has been changed re. television names. Is this wording correct? Shouldn't there at least be a warning that the parentheticals are only used if disambiguation is necessary? Mackerm 15:14, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've reverted that section of that page to state that this is still being discussed. A lot of people were suprised about the sudden move of well established pages to new titles. Mintguy (T) 15:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(moved from User:Netoholic) Hello - just curious as to why you moved Nineteen Eighty-Four (television) to Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme). It seems a little defunct to me, as they're both pretty similar titles. Is this a general style guide issue that I need to keep in mind for any future TV show articles I may create? Angmering 21:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why are you moving televtion series articles to different names? And why sometimes programme and sometimes series? And are you planning on cleaning up any double redirects which result? Rick K 21:38, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
Is there a consensus I missed regarding this? Why are you changing all of these?
Mike H 03:23, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I would also like to know why you have moved Futurama (animated series) season 1. Is there something else named Futurama that is an animated series? You are only making the name more obscure, these sort of additions to titles should only be used to disambiguation. — マイケル ₪ 03:35, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
I can't believe you have the audacity to quote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) back to people when they question you moving pages when you are the sole contributor to that page. You can't just create a policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) all on your own and then go changing pages to conform with it willy nilly. Please see the talk page and please do not make any further moves until a consensus policy is decided. In the mean time I think you should return the pages you moved back to where they were. Mintguy (T) 08:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree. This vote was not publicized -- I didn't even know that it was happening until Netoholic started moving things without discussion. These moves should be rescinded and the vote start over from scratch, well publicized. Rick K 19:06, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
All right, I'll start a new poll. I figure that leaving the poll open for 3-4 weeks should be enough time to reach a consensus or at least a general agreement. I'll put a note about the discussion on Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Current surveys and Wikipedia:Village pump and let everyone who voted or discussed the naming before know about the poll on their talk pages - should it be mentioned anywhere else? - Sean Curtin 01:30, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
How should pages for individual episodes be named? This seems like something else that could be standardised. Some observed naming conventions:
In the case of Buffy and Alias the format is
<episode name> (<series name> episode)
In the case of The X-Files the format used is
<episode name> (<series name>)
In the case of The Simpsons and the various Star Trek's the format is
<episode name>
which leads to clashes with regular articles.
Someone has suggested on The Simpsons' talk page the format
<series name>/<episode name>
-- Cfailde 15:27, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)