This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
I just found Top Gear (Hunan TV series) and Top Gear (Dragon TV series). Both aired in China, one in 2011 and one in 2014-15. I would think that the correct disambiguation would be Top Gear (yyyy Chinese TV series). Any thoughts? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 20:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Is the word "cycle" used for season disambiguation valid? This seems to be used in all various Top Model season articles ( Category:Top Model series), but I couldn't find a naming style over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Top Model to support it nor is it mentioned here.
OK, so the following articles exist (from 2020 (disambiguation)):
The problem? Every single one of these is either a news show or a documentary show, which means they're all "TV programs", not "TV series" (as they are currently disambiguated). Is it worth it to hold a WP:RM on this to move them all to "TV program" disambig. (e.g. 20/20 (U.S. TV program)), or is it better just to leave well enough alone?... I'll ping Gonnym to this discussion to see what they have to say. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 22:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hidden (TV series)#Requested move 28 July 2018. Issue is whether "Welsh"/Wales can be used for "by country" disambiguation. As other articles are disambiguated by "Scottish TV series", and "Quebec TV series" and "Quebec", this question is directly relevant to the NCTV guideline. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Are "music/singing competition shows" like The Voice (franchise) and American Idol "game shows" (under NCTV) – Yes or no?... Discuss. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 04:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:America's Next Top Model (cycle 1)#Requested move 30 July 2018. Gonnym ( talk) 11:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
During the discussion over at Talk:John Diggle (character)#Requested move 3 July 2018 about the correct article name, I've noticed that there was some inconsistency between film and TV articles when it came to character article title disambiguation. I then decided to research the naming convention for character names also with comics, books and video games - which all form part of the Arts, Entertainment and Media section of the Naming Convention guideline, and which have overlapping articles. I've noticed that while there exists a somewhat inconsistency between the guidelines, it is not something that cannot be slightly tweaked in order for all pages about fictional characters to have the same naming style. I've broken down the following into different parts for easier reading.
Current naming style:
For an article created about a character, add the show name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name.-
Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
.Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which has its own page, disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element)-
Daredevil (Daredevil character)
.If disambiguation is needed, add the film/film series/franchise title in parentheses; eg. Character name (title).-
The Bride (Kill Bill)
(film), Number 2 (Austin Powers)
(film series), Rey (Star Wars)
(franchise).If the character's name is the same as the film title or if the character appears in many different film titles, use Character name (character).-
Machete (character)
.Only when needing to further disambiguate a character's article (when "comics" is applicable to more than one article of the same name), and only when the codename/real name disambiguation noted here cannot be used (such as due to not knowing the character's "real name"), then, and only then, use: (character). This should be the last choice in disambiguation, when all others appear to be inappropriate.- From this I gather that
Red Robin (comics))
is ok.If a character name has been used by more than one publisher, use the publisher name to disambiguate.-
Scarecrow (DC Comics)
, Scarecrow (Marvel Comics)
.To disambiguate between more than one character of a single codename, use the following format: Codename (character name)-
Green Lantern (Hal Jordan)
.To disambiguate between multiple codenames of a single character, use the following format: Character name (codename)- Examples given were not in the style they were supposed to be. Couldn't find any examples in use.
Articles primarily about characters appearing in a comic should use the phrase (character)
Poison Ivy (character)
.For characters: Disambiguate by appending the series or individual game title in parentheses after the character's name-
Missile (Ghost Trick)
(single game), Link (The Legend of Zelda)
(franchise).If the subject's name is the same as the game or game series, then use "(character)"-
Rayman (character))
.Notes:
Articles primarily about characters appearing in a comic should use the phrase (character)vs Character articles section:
Only when needing to further disambiguate a character's article (when "comics" is applicable to more than one article of the same name), and only when the codename/real name disambiguation noted here cannot be used (such as due to not knowing the character's "real name"), then, and only then, use: (character). This should be the last choice in disambiguation, when all others appear to be inappropriate
Research summary:
(comics)
disambiguation unless that character name is used by more than 1 publisher, then it uses ("publisher name")
. Since the main stories of a publisher (at least for DC/Marvel) are in a same shared universe this makes "publisher name" somewhat similar to a franchise one.("franchise")
disambiguation.(character)
disambiguation (but does allow ("title" character)
.Problems:
(Star Trek)
/ (Star Wars)
, regardless of media.New examples that came up during the discussion:
Suggestions:
(comics)
for the following reasons:
Spike (television)
/ Number 2 (film)
/ Link (video game)
.("franchise")
/ ("shared universe")
/ ("publisher name")
("film series")
/ ("video game series")
/ ("book series")
("film")
/ ("tv series")
/ ("video game")
/ ("comic book series name")
OR "Codename" ("character name")
OR ("alt location")
(as in "Earth-One") / ("book")
/ ("Theater production")
[a](character)
(or ("title" character)
?)Notes:
This order should preserve the already established conventions, altering them only slightly in order to have a consistent style that is shared between all media types. Would appreciate hearing feedback on this. -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Daredevil (Daredevil character)
- this isn't part of the current NCTV, not sure where you got it or if its meant to be part of your suggestions. --
Netoholic
@ 11:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
A (B) where A is a B
and call anything else "un-disambiguations". Some disambigs are to indicate a topical field B to which A belongs, such as in this very NC under
WP:NCTV#Articles about television where television-related terms are disambiguated by the topic are as in
Ghosting (television). Disambiguating using just the title of a show is the same way. This reduces redundacy as
Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer character) provides no more information really than
Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Once you're aware its a topic area about a fictional setting, then all personal names in that topic area must be characters. Also, I think your comment about "tendentious wikiproject people" is itself tendentious behavior. --
Netoholic
@ 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
We need to figure out what to do in the case of New Zealand English and the use of "program" vs. "programme". There was an RfC held on the spelling for Australian TV shows held here back in later 2017, and I just assumed that New Zealand went the same way on the question as Australia. However, lately I've been using both spellings for New Zealand TV show articles, depending on circumstances. So, the question is: Do we need to hold an(other) RfC on whether New Zealand TV show articles should follow the UK spelling or the Australian spelling on the word "programme/program"? Or is one clearly "accepted" over the other? (And how could we be sure?...) Or are we OK with both being used, depending? 'Cos I can tell you, there NZ TV show articles that are disambiguated both ways currently... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
according to common usage in reliable sourcesis a pretty bad line in the guideline, as that really isn't what's being used as a guide, as it's more "according to common usage in the country of origin" (as seen in the examples a few lines below). If it really is by country of origin then a list of what countries use what would be much easier for editors then to have to guess each time. -- Gonnym ( talk) 20:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
What is this?... I checked the Dutch Wiki article as well, and this reads to me like game show (though for children). It's either that, or a "TV program" – it definitely does not appear to be a "TV series" (with continuing story elements). IOW, it's basically one of those "competition TV programs" that may or may not qualify as "game shows". As this looks to be the only existing article on a TV show named Checkpoint, I'm thinking it's best moved to Checkpoint (game show)... Thoughts? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 06:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The naming/disambigation for the three TV programs named Compass is all FUBAR'ed – see Compass (disambiguation)#Television. I suggest moving them to Compass (Australian TV program), Compass (1965 TV program), and Compass (1986 TV program), respectively. Compass (Canadian TV series) and Compass (Canadian TV program) will have to point back to the disambig. page. Thoughts? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
What problem, exactly, are we trying to avoid with a (1986… and (1988… disambig? They all have hatnotes and clear opening sentences, don’t they? The only issue I can think of would be trying to find them by typing “Compass” into Wikipedia’s search, and I’m not sure how big of a consideration that ts. — 67.14.236.193 ( talk) 19:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
"Also, redirects do not help in search results..."Not true! They do – you just have to type enough. For example: typing "Deception" into the search box isn't enough, but try typing "Deception (2" into the search box, and lo an behold! the requisite articles and redirects (with one exception – for some reason, Deception (2018 U.S. TV series) isn't listed...) pop up. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
There has been more and more discussions popping up recently about the subject of double disambiguation - Year and Country - with the basic arguments being WP:PRECISE vs WP:CONCISE. The guideline only very briefly mentions this option, without explaining when it should be used, causing this circular debate.
From the guideline: When there are two or more television productions of the same type and name, use one of the following methods: Prefix the country of broadcast [examples removed for brevity]; Prefix the year of release or program debut [examples removed for brevity]; If the year, country, or a combination of both is still insufficient to disambiguate the topic [...]
.
I propose that this section be updated to reflect the proper usage, whichever it may be decided, and list it a proper example in-line with the country and year options. The discussions so far have shown two things, that this is not an edge case situation and that two, that this is not a "case by case" situation, as the arguments are always the exact same arguments in each of the discussions. -- Gonnym ( talk) 12:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Late Show vs. The Late Show: Is this enough disambiguation from each other under WP:SMALLDETAILS?... Discuss.
(I'm asking this, because this issue needs to be resolved first, before the Late Show/The Late Show pile up of misnamed articles (see: The Late Show) can be tackled...) -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The Late Show ….) — 67.14.236.193 ( talk) 06:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Late Show (CBS TV series)#Requested move 22 August 2018. A requested move based on this discussion has now been initiated. Please feel free to comment at the RM discussion there. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Foreign Exchange (CNBC World)#Requested move 14 August 2018. This seems to be a case where disambiguation "by network" is the only option. So a look by the NCTV regulars will be welcome. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Episodes 1 and 2 (Inhumans)/GA1#Article title. This article is currently undergoing a GA review, and discussion is being held regarding the suitability of the title chosen for the article given the complicated nature of the article's scope. A few suggestions have been made already, but more eyes and opinions are more than welcome! - adamstom97 ( talk) 04:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Do we need a guide for consistent naming for split-episode articles? For example, for the first article, we have:
Then for the present article, we have:
Then there's splits based on the different production eras/years:
But then we also have some cases where an asterisks is used, with in-article no explanation for it:
As this is becoming a common occurrence, I think we need to implement some sort of guide on the naming. -- Alex TW 04:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
IMO, they should be split, for example, "seasons 1–20" and "seasons 21–present", not "seasons 1–20", and then the "more recent" seasons at just the LoE "base title" article.- This was addressed at the List of The Simpsons episodes* RM. They are not separate articles per se. List of The Simpsons episodes* was created as a cache page for the LoE page. This issue requires familiarity with how transclusion actually works (not how people think it works) and the post expand include size, both of which are misunderstood by most editors. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Rewording what we've said, I generated this (bit longer than I expected):
When episode list articles exceed the post-expand include size due to too many episodes being listed or transcluded, they should be split into separate articles. Articles not including the current season (i.e. splits of earlier seasons) should disambiguate with (seasons X–Y). Articles including the current season should disambiguate with (seasons Z–present). The article without any season disambiguation in its title should be a disambiguation page listing all split articles. {{ List has been split}} should be used in each article, succeeding or preceding the listed episodes. Instances where disambiguation by year is more preferable (for example, Doctor Who and U.S. daytime soap operas) should be discussed on each article's talk page.
This could be included at either Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Episode listing or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#List articles. -- Alex TW 05:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
List of Casualty episodes* and List of Casualty episodes are very confusing and make it impossible to know which one is for what seasons- Whether or not you understand why it is the case, List of Casualty episodes* is not a separate article to List of Casualty episodes. It's a cache of the latter, a sub-page if you want. List of Casualty episodes is the LoE page for the series. List of Casualty episodes* is only a page that you have to look at because of the post expand include size limit. It's not directly a child of List of Casualty episodes nor is it a parent of the season articles. An analogy would be the case where Tom, a single father, has 20 children and has employed a nanny to look after the first 15. The nanny is not a parent, she's just a "child manager" for Tom who only manages the children. If you want to deal with the children you go to Tom. Tom = List of Casualty episodes while the nanny = List of Casualty episodes*. You don't need to know which children the nanny List of Casualty episodes* manages because Tom List of Casualty episodes tells you that. There is only one
|list_episodes=
in {{
Infobox television}} and, forCasualty, that points to
List of Casualty episodes, not
List of Casualty episodes*. This is the way all TV series work (or should), except for those where the episodes are all in the main article.I find it unbelievably hard to imagine that this is the only or best solution.- Several others have been discussed in the past. Using the asterisks minimises the amount of effort needed to maintain the articles. Essentially, new seasons only need to be pasted into List of Casualty episodes*. All other work is done at List of Casualty episodes and automatically transcluded to List of Casualty episodes*. List of Casualty episodes* has required no edits in the past 2 years other than removing an unnecessary template that was recently added. Based on my experience over the past more than 2.5 years with the problem this seems the best solution. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course List of Casualty episodes* does not require edits. It is a basically complete set, in which I mean that it will always (if page size limit stays the same) be seasons 1 to 20.- That's not what I meant. List of Casualty episodes* doesn't have separate menus or references sections, or even a series overview table. Almost all content including the lede, TOC, series overview table, notes, references, navboxes and even categories are transcluded from List of Casualty episodes using labelled section transclusion. This is completely different to standard LoE pages where only the episode tables are transcluded. The page is only 3kB in size while its post expand include size is 1,432kB. And no, it won't always be seasons 1 to 20. When List of Casualty episodes breaks the post expand include size again, the plan is to move more content as is necessary to List of Casualty episodes*. Again, we don't want our readers to have to navigate through more pages than is necessary.
A READER wanting to read the article for seasons 1 to 20 won't be able to read it at List of Casualty episodes as it just does not exist there.- This is the case for any series. The articles for seasons are all elsewhere. That's not an issue. The pages, as they are now, are set to provide linking to the appropriate sections as necessary. If a reader wants to look at the list for series 3 while they're looking at List of Casualty episodes they'll be taken to the correct spot on List of Casualty episodes*. If they want to go to series 32 while they're looking at List of Casualty episodes* they'll be taken to the correct spot on List of Casualty episodes. They'll be sent to the correct spot on the correct page regardless of which page they're looking at.
if really the issue with the page is that it's transcluding too much useless data and the software does not have "smarter" options, then the best solution is a real sub page at the season level - so The Simpsons (season 1)/episodes which would then be transcluded to both the season page and the list page.- I don't see that as necessary at all, or desirable for that matter. It would require a lot more effort when creating season pages, totally different to what we do now. The present situation is far simpler. It requires minimal editing of season pages. Your suggestion would be a major change to the way we work.
this is another one of those examples where "editors are supposed to serve template editors", and not the other way around- Not at all. It has nothing to do with templates. It's all about working around a deficiency in the software that really only affects TV articles.
We should be adhering to naming conventions.- There is no relevant naming convention here. We do have to work within the limits of the Wikimedia software. We don't have a choice there. It's not something that we can fix. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
List of Casualty episodes* is not a separate article to List of Casualty episodesand
That's not what I meant. List of Casualty episodes* doesn't have separate menus or references sections, or even a series overview tableand
Again, we don't want our readers to have to navigate through more pages than is necessary- first, lets both be clear we are using the same terminology as this discussion can't move on if we both call one thing differntly. List of Casualty episodes* and List of Casualty episodes are two different articles to a reader and will show up as two different search results.
List of Casualty episodes* is only a page that you have to look at because of the post expand include size limitand
A READER wanting to read the article for seasons 1 to 20 won't be able to read it at List of Casualty episodes as it just does not exist there. [mine] - This is the case for any series- so decide, is this a place a reader goes to or not? If a reader goes to this page, then they should understand what this page is.
Almost all content including the lede, TOC, series overview table, notes, references, navboxes and even categories are transcluded from List of Casualty episodes using labelled section transclusion- I know, which is horrible and which I agreed with an editor that tried changing it here.
The problem is not with the first 20 seasons, nor is it with the current size of this article as I've fixed this for now. Instead it is with the latest seasons that will cause List of The Simpsons episodes that will break. Moving seasons 16-20 to the article will break the article more quickly- this is because the way you are "fixing" it is flawed. Once you create an ok range which reaches the limit, you don't just continue on adding seasons just to break it. If adding 16-20 will break the current one, then the Simpsons will need a 3rd article. I've never understood the concern about how our poor old users will need to actively click one more mouse click. Also, the only this needs this kind of fix is because you prefer this way. Again, my solution works and will let you have all seasons in one list, but you prefer this way, which is cool, but then don't try and blame your fix on technical limitations.
I don't see that as necessary at all, or desirable for that matter. It would require a lot more effort when creating season pages, totally different to what we do now. The present situation is far simpler. It requires minimal editing of season pages. Your suggestion would be a major change to the way we work.- you don't. Which again, is cool, but then don't blame your bad fix on technical limitations. Also, my solution does not require
a lot more effort when creating season pages- it does require more effort in that you click another "create article" and link the transclude. So that's what? 30 seconds more? I guess our definitions of effort vary. Thinking about this a bit more, I'm not sure those 30 seconds are even close to the amount of time it takes you to manage the page limit each time.
There is no relevant naming convention here. We do have to work within the limits of the Wikimedia software. We don't have a choice there. It's not something that we can fix.and of course, lastly, still not addressing the point of conflict - why is the asterisk the only option? -- Gonnym ( talk) 18:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
No, you're still not getting it – there should not be a "main LoE page" in these case – the latter should be converted to a WP:DABPAGE. This eliminates the entire problem.- Let's get it clear. The only thing that is the problem is that you don't like the asterisk. The LoE page works fine and looks like every other TV LoE with only minor changes, just like every other LoE page. Your suggestion doesn't fix anything. Instead it makes the poor reader have to navigate through multiple pages instead of doing it from one. We should be aiming to make the reader's experience the same across the project. You'd probably like to make your two LoE pages different, with no transclusion, which is bound to lead to duplication errors. Transclusion is used with series overview tables and season articles specifically to eliminate these issues.
List of Casualty episodes* and List of Casualty episodes are two different articles to a reader- However, techncially they are not. The pages have been setup so moves between articles should be transparent, as I've already explained.
so decide, is this a place a reader goes to or not? If a reader goes to this page, then they should understand what this page is.- First stop for the reader should always be List of Casualty episodes. If they click on series 3 they will be taken to List of Casualty episodes* without needing to understand why or how it happens. When they click on series 30 they will be taken to List of Casualty episodes as already explained. List of Casualty episodes* is simply an extension to List of Casualty episodes created to get around the post expand include size limit. I've already explained this.
I know, which is horrible- It's only horrible because you don't understand it. At one stage, people thought transclusion was horrible and instead duplicated content resulting in multiple articles that were not in sync with each other. The series overview table in the main series article was often different to the one in the LoE page and episode tables in season articles were also different to the LoE page. Transclusion fixed that. LST is simply an extension to the simple transclusion that we generally use. It allows us to be more specific in what is transcluded. We could actually use it all the time but there isn't really a need.
I agreed with an editor that tried changing it here.- Looking at the discussion I see that AlexTheWhovian disagreed with you for quite valid reasons.
Once you create an ok range which reaches the limit, you don't just continue on adding seasons just to break it. If adding 16-20 will break the current one, then the Simpsons will need a 3rd article.- This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the process because that's not what we do. The post expand include size limit is 2MB. When the LoE page breaks we don't create a new page by moving 2MB over to it. We pick the minimum number of seasons to move across, as I have already explained to you, in order to stop the LoE page breaking. With The Simpsons, the article containing seasons 1-20 is only at 83% of the maximum size. The LoE page is only at 57% so it has a long way to go before we'd need to move any more content out of it. There's probably a good 8 years before we have to look at doing that. So far, no TV series has come close to needing 3 pages so I really don't see your point.
I've never understood the concern about how our poor old users will need to actively click one more mouse click.- It's not just one mouse click. That's a gross over-simplification. If you're trying to navigate between episodes those clicks all add up and if you're navigating between seasons you're either going to have to open multiple browser tabs or lose your place. The smaller the number of pages that a reader has to navigate the better.
Also, the only this needs this kind of fix is because you prefer this way.- No, we've tried multiple ways of implementing fixes, including removal of as many templates as could be removed (even some that shouldn't - they all contribute) and, after TWO YEARS at List of The Simpsons episodes, this was found to be the best way.
my solution works and will let you have all seasons in one list- I'm sorry but what exactly was your proposal? Regardless, you can't have all of the seasons in one list. This is what we normally do and several pages have broken precisely because some series can't have all episodes in one list.
don't try and blame your fix on technical limitations.- WP:IDHT? The technical limitations are there and we have to work around them. If it wasn't for the technical limitations we wouldn't have had to implement a fix.
it does require more effort in that you click another "create article" and link the transclude.- I'm sorry but I'm still not understanding what your proposal actually is. What do you mean by "link the transclude"?
and of course, lastly, still not addressing the point of conflict - why is the asterisk the only option?- And again, I didn't say it was the only option. I said it was the best option, based on over 2.5 years of practical involvement with this problem. I've also explained why it's the best, although really it could be any single character.
a larger pool of uninvolved editors- Those editors being people who obviously don't understand the technical issues. Gonnym's comments demonstrate this. There are a number of questions for which answers have already been provided. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 08:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
AussieLegend's explanation of technical limitations makes no sense to me; I agree with the multiple other editors who support not using that setup. Using hacks to work around the 2MB page-size limit are bound to fail and should be avoided; I still don't see how the asterisk is better than any other page name for transclusions. Occasional page moves (on the order of one per decade) are not at all problematic, and certainly don't justify using confusing page names to avoid (series 21-present) constructions. The concept of "subpages" is very intentionally not used in article space.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 16:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
it seems like there was a hack to use substs and multiple levels of templates to avoid hitting the transclusion limits; I don't understand any of that.- I don't understand it either because that wasn't done. Where did you get that from? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Wow, what a wall of text above. I'm the guy who engineered this unique solution that AussieLegend is so adamantly defending. While the technical issues that led me to do this have mostly been fixed, so there isn't really a strong technical rationale for this solution as there was when I implemented it on List of the Simpsons episodes in February 2016, there is still a logical argument for keeping it. I'll explain point-by-point.
{{#invoke:Episode list|sublist}}
, so replacing {{Episode list/sublist}}
with {{#invoke:Episode list|sublist}}
in the source code of the episode articles avoids transcluding a lot of content, which both renders the page more efficiently for our readers and allows these lists to grow larger before a split becomes necessary.Apparently we can track split episode-lists by watching Pages that transclude Template:List has been split. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Five episode lists have been split: {{ List has been split}} (also at least one "Japanese list", which uses different templates)
The last one, Doctor Who, has a natural splitting point.
I think that covers everything. Let me know if there's something I neglected to cover or that needs further explanation. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see where WP:NCTV addresses this issue.And that is precisely why I started this very discussion, to gain some sort of standard on naming techniques for splits. I see the asterisks note, I still disagree with it. The articles should be full article splits named properly, not just some technical attempt. For what it's worth, I also disagree with the replacing of
{{Episode list/sublist}}
with {{#invoke:Episode list|sublist}}
. --
Alex
TW 02:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
A generic title like this allows the specific number of series included on the page to be changed, without the need to move the page.- This also seems to me unneeded. Just decide that 1 page is until a certain season and never add more. No need to keep increasing until reaching the very end of the limit. The argument about this actually being 1 page with a "Seamless" connection is also wrong. When I first encountered this page I had a bad experience as I was logically scrolling to reach a certain point as I thought I'm in the same page, but then noticed that I was in a different page and the scroll bar on the side represented something completely different. These are two pages. They act as two pages and they look like two pages. Even if the content is transluded. -- Gonnym ( talk) 19:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Wow, what a wall of text above.And as for
I later considered whether using an invisible character instead of the asterisk would have been better- good Lord, this would have been even worse. Two (apparently) identical titles, editors unable to determine the correct one for the "cache" list and the most recent list, not being able to link it properly from their keyboard, all so
readers can't see any difference, which just supports the idea that it would make it worse for editors and readers alike. I can guarantee that that would be a speedy objection. -- Alex TW 03:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if more eyes from WP:NCTV could take a look at Talk:New Year's Eve Live (CNN program)#Requested move 27 September 2018 and Talk:NFL GameDay (NFL Network show)#Requested move 27 September 2018 as these two could use more participants. Similarly, Talk:CNN Newsroom (CNNI)#Requested move 2 October 2018 has had no responses yet. Thanks. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts on the title for Space / Time? It was originally located at Space and Time (Doctor Who) in 2011, but I'm not sure either title is the best for the article. -- Alex TW 01:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
How would you disambiguate a TV play article (that needs disambiguation):
The guideline doesn't cover this but there are enough articles on this subject that at least one discussion should cover this. -- Gonnym ( talk) 16:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I think its awkward to consider any live presentation as a "film" and I know of no definition in WP:NCTV or WP:NCFILM which allows such. I'm thinking that (TV program) should be used, but I suppose we'd have to view individual cases and see what the references ultimately classify them as. -- Netoholic @ 16:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no requirement that we restrict disambiguations to suggestions explicitly listed at the relevant guideline. TV play is a thing on WP. That's more than adequate for us to use it, and it's the most appropriate and accurate term. We should not be misleading users by referring to these TV plays as films. -- В²C ☎ 17:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
which is a live drama performance broadcast from the television studio or, later, put on the tape.but later says
The term "television play" is a partial misnomer. Although the earliest works were marked by television drama drawing on its theatrical roots, with live performances telecast from the television studio, a shift towards shooting on film occurred in the late 1970s, utilising techniques and working methods common in the cinema, but use of the term has persistedand reading the article on Play for Today and looking into some of its entries, it seems that these "plays" are actually films, as they are not shot and aired live. Edna, the Inebriate Woman was shot in November and December 1970 and aired on on 21 October 1971. In this situation, in my opionion, we shouldn't follow what the original sources say. If the "play" is a film, then it's a film. No need to keep this mistake alive. Inside the article it could be mentioned that at the time it was known as a TV play. Now regardless to this all, there is another issue, which is raised in the discussion below this, these TV plays/films are part of a series, so these should probably be disambiguated with the series name. -- Gonnym ( talk) 17:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Do we still need this line which is currently in the guideline: "Important: Write U.S. with periods, but write UK without periods (full stops) as per WP:NCA" in the Additional disambiguation section. While MOS:US once said to use only U.S., it no longer does. Both US and U.S. are acceptable, provided they are used consistently within an article. Do the naming conventions here really need to favour one over the other? -- Whats new? (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is not relevant... no one who has a decent command of the English language will look at Name of series (US TV series) and not be able to recognize it or understand it. One could argue WP:CONSISTENCY applies only to the actual title and not the disambiguator but that is possibly stretching. The thing is, switching to "American" and "British" is not really appropriate for an international audience because "American" often only means "United States" to English-speaking folks... much of South/Central America takes issue with the adjective being used to refer solely to the US and so that wouldn't actually be a move towards WP:COMMONALITY.
Of course what really needs to happen is that very stubborn people from the US who cling to requiring full points for their country's acronym need to embrace WP:COMMONALITY, accept the shift away from using them (even in their own country), honour the fact Wikipedia is not a US-based project, and get on board with MOS:ABBR. I find it pretty appalling that there's a US-specific exception to MOS:ABBR but there you go, so far it stands. They're still not metric, either, so what can you do?
With MOS:US as it currently stands, it makes sense to keep the country-based disambiguator for television series from the United States as "(U.S. TV series)", but the wording explaining this should definitely be changed. Maybe something like:
Definitely the bolded and italicized "Important:" label needs to be dropped, however, as total overkill because I can assure you that if anyone makes the "mistake" of using "(US TV series)" as the disambiguator for the actual article page in the current climate, that will get "fixed" very quickly. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 02:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, switching to "American" and "British" is not really appropriate for an international audience because "American" often only means "United States" to English-speaking folks... much of South/Central America takes issue with the adjective being used to refer solely to the US and so that wouldn't actually be a move towards WP:COMMONALITY.Except every other WP/NC except this one is using "American" and "British" to disambiguate (including WP:BLPs). (And it's still listed at List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations, which people around here keep sending me too, so there's no claim that it's not "official".) So that argument utterly fails. Face it: WP:NCTV is the only naming convention guideline that is stubbornly, and unreasonably, sticking it use of abbreviations for the United States and the United Kingdom as disambiguators. Pretty much literally nobody else around here is doing that, so it's this project that's out of step on this. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The Case of the Restless Redhead (Perry Mason) is unnecessary disambiguation, yes? – This should be at The Case of the Restless Redhead, correct?... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
If you have a minute, I would appreciate comments on Talk:Studio One (UAE TV program)#Requested move 3 November 2018. Thank you. -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
(Context: IJBall added one of the relevant articles to a maint. category)
Hallmark Hall of Fame is the "longest-running primetime series in the history of television" (1951–). Its episodes are films, often original productions of plays. This presents us with an edge case for the naming conventions, exemplified by these two episodes:
Episode 4.13 can't be Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame)
because that conflicts with episode 10.2. Episode 10.2 is strictly speaking misnamed, because it's an episode of a TV series and should be at Episode name (series name), but that conflicts with 4.2. In other words, I've concluded—much to my, and apparently also IJBall's, surprise—that the current name for 4.2 is actually the most correct one; albeit for a case not directly covered by these naming conventions (use Episode name (series name) plus dab using year if needed).
I don't really care a whole lot about what name/dab to use for these, but I rather feel it should be consistent; so I'm hoping those who do work in this area of the project could pick through the issue and come up with a consistent way to deal with this. Keep in mind that List of Hallmark Hall of Fame episodes has a hodgepodge of article names (and excessive redlinks, and EGGy link targets) that will probably need cleanup to match the guideline afterwards (and may or may not bear on the discussion).
Oh, and if someone could ping the relevant WikiProjects about this discussion I'd appreciate it. I'm not really sure whether this is WP:TV, WP:Film, or WP:DAB (or either or none or others or…). -- Xover ( talk) 19:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
<Episode name> (<TV series name> season <#>)
, so:
Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame season 4) and
Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame season 10).<Episode name> (<TV series debut year> <TV series name>)
, so:
A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone) and
A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone). This follows in the style of (<TV series debut year> TV series) for regular disambiguation. --
Gonnym (
talk) 14:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)<Episode name> (<TV series debut year> <TV series name>)
, so:
Tony (UK Skins series 1) and
Tony (U.S. Skins season 1). --
Gonnym (
talk) 07:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Any input/thought/comments on the above? I'm finding more and more examples but can't fix any as we can't agree on a style. There is also always use of double parenthesis which is starting to appear in more articles, such as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) (season 1), which if accepted can be used so an name like A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone) will become A Game of Pool (1959 TV series) (The Twilight Zone) / Tony (UK TV series) (Skins series 1) (which I'm not sure if is better). -- Gonnym ( talk) 07:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Gonnym, IJBall, and Netoholic: Thanks to all of you for keeping at this! I wonder if we might extract a list of pathological examples and a set of possible naming rules, and then summarize them in a table for easy overview. On that basis we might fruitfully solicit feedback from the TV and Film WikiProjects (or even a community-wide RfC if needed). Something along the lines of:
ID | Rule |
---|---|
A | Episode name (Series name) |
B | prefix disambiguator with episode year |
C | append series launch year to series name in disambiguator |
Current name | Associated series | A | A+B | A+B+C |
---|---|---|---|---|
Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954) | Hallmark Hall of Fame | Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) | Macbeth (1954 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode) | Macbeth (1954 Hallmark Hall of Fame 1951 episode) |
Macbeth (1960 American film) | Hallmark Hall of Fame | Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) | Macbeth (1960 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode) | Macbeth (1960 Hallmark Hall of Fame 1951 episode) |
A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1959) | The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) | A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone) | A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone episode) | A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone 1959 episode) |
A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1985) | The Twilight Zone (1985 TV series) | A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone) | A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone episode) | A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone 1985 episode) |
Alo (Skins series 5) | Skins (UK TV series) | Alo (Skins) | Alo (2011 Skins episode) | Alo (2011 Skins 2007 episode) |
Alo (Skins series 6) | Skins (UK TV series) | Alo (Skins) | Alo (2012 Skins episode) | Alo (2012 Skins 2007 episode) |
Coronation Street Live (2000 episode) | Coronation Street | Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street) | Coronation Street Live (2000 Coronation Street episode) | Coronation Street Live (2000 Coronation Street 1960 episode) |
Coronation Street Live (2010 episode) | Coronation Street | Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street) | Coronation Street Live (2010 Coronation Street episode) | Coronation Street Live (2010 Coronation Street 1960 episode) |
Tony (Skins series 1) | Skins (UK TV series) | Tony (Skins) | Tony (2007 Skins episode) | Tony (2007 Skins 2007 episode) |
Tony (redlink) | Skins (North American TV series) | Tony (Skins) | Tony (2011 Skins episode) | Tony (2011 Skins 2011 episode) |
What immediately strikes me looking at the above table is that rule C is never going to make much sense in combination with A+B. At the same time, A+B alone are sufficient to clearly disambiguate the episode. It does fail to disambiguate which series it is associated with, but an argument can certainly be made that that is not required in the article's title (I'm not sure I'd be persuaded by it, but it can certainly be made).
Rule C might be replaced with a rule D that uses some kind of variant of multiple parentheticals—either Episode (dab) (dab) or Episode (ep dab (series dab))—but I can't imagine that ending in anything but insanity.
What are rules D, E, and F that we should add, and in what combinations should we apply them?
Should we adduce that disambiguation is only to be added when article titles are actually ambiguous? And that the same applies to each naming rule? That is, rule B is not applied if rule A alone is sufficient to resolve a naming collision? That might make rule C useful for something again in the table above (it would only kick in in the A+B+C column for The Twilight Zone and Skins episodes). -- Xover ( talk) 09:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
If there are multiple shows of the same name, include the disambiguation, similar to the above for TV series in the season description, for example, "The Apprentice (U.S. season 1)"and
Similar names should continue even if one version of the show has several more seasons than the other;, but then you have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#List articles which says
If the main TV series page title was disambiguated from other entertainment properties (e.g. other TV series, films, novels, etc.), related list pages may or may not need to be further disambiguated, depending on whether other list articles existwhich then produces ambiguous page names as List of Skins episodes. I personally don't like how the list section's exception was added and believe that all sub-articles of the main article should follow the same style, with maybe only losing the "(TV series)" disambiguation, if it is the only TV series and those articles are TV-centric (like list of episodes). So taking the season wording here, then yes, all episodes should have the same series name as the disambiguation. The problem, none of them are visually pleasing. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Type | Current name | A | B1 | B2 | C1 | C2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Two episodes with the same name in the same series | Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954) | Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) | Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954 episode) | Macbeth (1954 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode) | - | - |
Macbeth (1960 American film) | Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) | Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1960 episode) | Macbeth (1960 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode) | - | - | |
Two episodes with the same name in two different series with the same name from the same country | A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1959) | A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone) | A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone episode) | - | A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone season 3 episode) | A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone 1961 episode) |
A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1985) | A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone) | A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone episode) | - | A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone season 3 episode) | A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone 1989 episode) | |
Two episodes with the same name in the same series (using year) | Coronation Street Live (2000 episode) | Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street) | Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street 2000 episode) | - | - | - |
Coronation Street Live (2010 episode) | Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street) | Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street 2010 episode) | - | - | - | |
Two episodes with the same name in the same series (using series/season) | Alo (Skins series 5) | Alo (Skins) | Alo (Skins series 5) | - | Alo (Skins series 5 episode) | - |
Alo (Skins series 6) | Alo (Skins) | Alo (Skins series 6) | - | Alo (Skins series 6 episode) | - | |
Two episodes with the same name in the same series and in two different series with the same name from different countries | Tony (Skins series 1) | Tony (Skins) | Tony (UK Skins episode) | - | Tony (UK Skins series 1 episode) | - |
Tony (potential valid redirect) | Tony (Skins) | Tony (North American Skins episode) | - | Tony (North American Skins season 1 episode) | - |
Added the fixes I mentioned and the style I mentioned before. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The guideline does not talk about categories but I ran into an issue with category names that should be resolved. From my experience, the category structure of sub-categories follows the one of the parent.
In this scenario, look at the following category tree:
Notice that all categories continue with the parent style - "Angel (TV series)" except the season categories which are titled "Angel (season #) episodes". To me, the correct style would actually be "Angel (TV series) season # episodes". Thoughts? -- Gonnym ( talk) 17:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:VIP Brother 1#Requested move 28 November 2018. Alucard 16 ❯❯❯ chat? 03:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother 2005 (Finland)#Requested move 28 November 2018 . Alucard 16 ❯❯❯ chat? 07:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gran Hermano 1 (Spain)#Requested move 1 December 2018 . Alucard 16 ❯❯❯ chat? 13:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
I just found Top Gear (Hunan TV series) and Top Gear (Dragon TV series). Both aired in China, one in 2011 and one in 2014-15. I would think that the correct disambiguation would be Top Gear (yyyy Chinese TV series). Any thoughts? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 20:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Is the word "cycle" used for season disambiguation valid? This seems to be used in all various Top Model season articles ( Category:Top Model series), but I couldn't find a naming style over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Top Model to support it nor is it mentioned here.
OK, so the following articles exist (from 2020 (disambiguation)):
The problem? Every single one of these is either a news show or a documentary show, which means they're all "TV programs", not "TV series" (as they are currently disambiguated). Is it worth it to hold a WP:RM on this to move them all to "TV program" disambig. (e.g. 20/20 (U.S. TV program)), or is it better just to leave well enough alone?... I'll ping Gonnym to this discussion to see what they have to say. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 22:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hidden (TV series)#Requested move 28 July 2018. Issue is whether "Welsh"/Wales can be used for "by country" disambiguation. As other articles are disambiguated by "Scottish TV series", and "Quebec TV series" and "Quebec", this question is directly relevant to the NCTV guideline. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Are "music/singing competition shows" like The Voice (franchise) and American Idol "game shows" (under NCTV) – Yes or no?... Discuss. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 04:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:America's Next Top Model (cycle 1)#Requested move 30 July 2018. Gonnym ( talk) 11:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
During the discussion over at Talk:John Diggle (character)#Requested move 3 July 2018 about the correct article name, I've noticed that there was some inconsistency between film and TV articles when it came to character article title disambiguation. I then decided to research the naming convention for character names also with comics, books and video games - which all form part of the Arts, Entertainment and Media section of the Naming Convention guideline, and which have overlapping articles. I've noticed that while there exists a somewhat inconsistency between the guidelines, it is not something that cannot be slightly tweaked in order for all pages about fictional characters to have the same naming style. I've broken down the following into different parts for easier reading.
Current naming style:
For an article created about a character, add the show name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name.-
Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
.Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which has its own page, disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element)-
Daredevil (Daredevil character)
.If disambiguation is needed, add the film/film series/franchise title in parentheses; eg. Character name (title).-
The Bride (Kill Bill)
(film), Number 2 (Austin Powers)
(film series), Rey (Star Wars)
(franchise).If the character's name is the same as the film title or if the character appears in many different film titles, use Character name (character).-
Machete (character)
.Only when needing to further disambiguate a character's article (when "comics" is applicable to more than one article of the same name), and only when the codename/real name disambiguation noted here cannot be used (such as due to not knowing the character's "real name"), then, and only then, use: (character). This should be the last choice in disambiguation, when all others appear to be inappropriate.- From this I gather that
Red Robin (comics))
is ok.If a character name has been used by more than one publisher, use the publisher name to disambiguate.-
Scarecrow (DC Comics)
, Scarecrow (Marvel Comics)
.To disambiguate between more than one character of a single codename, use the following format: Codename (character name)-
Green Lantern (Hal Jordan)
.To disambiguate between multiple codenames of a single character, use the following format: Character name (codename)- Examples given were not in the style they were supposed to be. Couldn't find any examples in use.
Articles primarily about characters appearing in a comic should use the phrase (character)
Poison Ivy (character)
.For characters: Disambiguate by appending the series or individual game title in parentheses after the character's name-
Missile (Ghost Trick)
(single game), Link (The Legend of Zelda)
(franchise).If the subject's name is the same as the game or game series, then use "(character)"-
Rayman (character))
.Notes:
Articles primarily about characters appearing in a comic should use the phrase (character)vs Character articles section:
Only when needing to further disambiguate a character's article (when "comics" is applicable to more than one article of the same name), and only when the codename/real name disambiguation noted here cannot be used (such as due to not knowing the character's "real name"), then, and only then, use: (character). This should be the last choice in disambiguation, when all others appear to be inappropriate
Research summary:
(comics)
disambiguation unless that character name is used by more than 1 publisher, then it uses ("publisher name")
. Since the main stories of a publisher (at least for DC/Marvel) are in a same shared universe this makes "publisher name" somewhat similar to a franchise one.("franchise")
disambiguation.(character)
disambiguation (but does allow ("title" character)
.Problems:
(Star Trek)
/ (Star Wars)
, regardless of media.New examples that came up during the discussion:
Suggestions:
(comics)
for the following reasons:
Spike (television)
/ Number 2 (film)
/ Link (video game)
.("franchise")
/ ("shared universe")
/ ("publisher name")
("film series")
/ ("video game series")
/ ("book series")
("film")
/ ("tv series")
/ ("video game")
/ ("comic book series name")
OR "Codename" ("character name")
OR ("alt location")
(as in "Earth-One") / ("book")
/ ("Theater production")
[a](character)
(or ("title" character)
?)Notes:
This order should preserve the already established conventions, altering them only slightly in order to have a consistent style that is shared between all media types. Would appreciate hearing feedback on this. -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Daredevil (Daredevil character)
- this isn't part of the current NCTV, not sure where you got it or if its meant to be part of your suggestions. --
Netoholic
@ 11:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
A (B) where A is a B
and call anything else "un-disambiguations". Some disambigs are to indicate a topical field B to which A belongs, such as in this very NC under
WP:NCTV#Articles about television where television-related terms are disambiguated by the topic are as in
Ghosting (television). Disambiguating using just the title of a show is the same way. This reduces redundacy as
Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer character) provides no more information really than
Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Once you're aware its a topic area about a fictional setting, then all personal names in that topic area must be characters. Also, I think your comment about "tendentious wikiproject people" is itself tendentious behavior. --
Netoholic
@ 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
We need to figure out what to do in the case of New Zealand English and the use of "program" vs. "programme". There was an RfC held on the spelling for Australian TV shows held here back in later 2017, and I just assumed that New Zealand went the same way on the question as Australia. However, lately I've been using both spellings for New Zealand TV show articles, depending on circumstances. So, the question is: Do we need to hold an(other) RfC on whether New Zealand TV show articles should follow the UK spelling or the Australian spelling on the word "programme/program"? Or is one clearly "accepted" over the other? (And how could we be sure?...) Or are we OK with both being used, depending? 'Cos I can tell you, there NZ TV show articles that are disambiguated both ways currently... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
according to common usage in reliable sourcesis a pretty bad line in the guideline, as that really isn't what's being used as a guide, as it's more "according to common usage in the country of origin" (as seen in the examples a few lines below). If it really is by country of origin then a list of what countries use what would be much easier for editors then to have to guess each time. -- Gonnym ( talk) 20:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
What is this?... I checked the Dutch Wiki article as well, and this reads to me like game show (though for children). It's either that, or a "TV program" – it definitely does not appear to be a "TV series" (with continuing story elements). IOW, it's basically one of those "competition TV programs" that may or may not qualify as "game shows". As this looks to be the only existing article on a TV show named Checkpoint, I'm thinking it's best moved to Checkpoint (game show)... Thoughts? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 06:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The naming/disambigation for the three TV programs named Compass is all FUBAR'ed – see Compass (disambiguation)#Television. I suggest moving them to Compass (Australian TV program), Compass (1965 TV program), and Compass (1986 TV program), respectively. Compass (Canadian TV series) and Compass (Canadian TV program) will have to point back to the disambig. page. Thoughts? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
What problem, exactly, are we trying to avoid with a (1986… and (1988… disambig? They all have hatnotes and clear opening sentences, don’t they? The only issue I can think of would be trying to find them by typing “Compass” into Wikipedia’s search, and I’m not sure how big of a consideration that ts. — 67.14.236.193 ( talk) 19:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
"Also, redirects do not help in search results..."Not true! They do – you just have to type enough. For example: typing "Deception" into the search box isn't enough, but try typing "Deception (2" into the search box, and lo an behold! the requisite articles and redirects (with one exception – for some reason, Deception (2018 U.S. TV series) isn't listed...) pop up. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
There has been more and more discussions popping up recently about the subject of double disambiguation - Year and Country - with the basic arguments being WP:PRECISE vs WP:CONCISE. The guideline only very briefly mentions this option, without explaining when it should be used, causing this circular debate.
From the guideline: When there are two or more television productions of the same type and name, use one of the following methods: Prefix the country of broadcast [examples removed for brevity]; Prefix the year of release or program debut [examples removed for brevity]; If the year, country, or a combination of both is still insufficient to disambiguate the topic [...]
.
I propose that this section be updated to reflect the proper usage, whichever it may be decided, and list it a proper example in-line with the country and year options. The discussions so far have shown two things, that this is not an edge case situation and that two, that this is not a "case by case" situation, as the arguments are always the exact same arguments in each of the discussions. -- Gonnym ( talk) 12:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Late Show vs. The Late Show: Is this enough disambiguation from each other under WP:SMALLDETAILS?... Discuss.
(I'm asking this, because this issue needs to be resolved first, before the Late Show/The Late Show pile up of misnamed articles (see: The Late Show) can be tackled...) -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The Late Show ….) — 67.14.236.193 ( talk) 06:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Late Show (CBS TV series)#Requested move 22 August 2018. A requested move based on this discussion has now been initiated. Please feel free to comment at the RM discussion there. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Foreign Exchange (CNBC World)#Requested move 14 August 2018. This seems to be a case where disambiguation "by network" is the only option. So a look by the NCTV regulars will be welcome. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Episodes 1 and 2 (Inhumans)/GA1#Article title. This article is currently undergoing a GA review, and discussion is being held regarding the suitability of the title chosen for the article given the complicated nature of the article's scope. A few suggestions have been made already, but more eyes and opinions are more than welcome! - adamstom97 ( talk) 04:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Do we need a guide for consistent naming for split-episode articles? For example, for the first article, we have:
Then for the present article, we have:
Then there's splits based on the different production eras/years:
But then we also have some cases where an asterisks is used, with in-article no explanation for it:
As this is becoming a common occurrence, I think we need to implement some sort of guide on the naming. -- Alex TW 04:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
IMO, they should be split, for example, "seasons 1–20" and "seasons 21–present", not "seasons 1–20", and then the "more recent" seasons at just the LoE "base title" article.- This was addressed at the List of The Simpsons episodes* RM. They are not separate articles per se. List of The Simpsons episodes* was created as a cache page for the LoE page. This issue requires familiarity with how transclusion actually works (not how people think it works) and the post expand include size, both of which are misunderstood by most editors. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Rewording what we've said, I generated this (bit longer than I expected):
When episode list articles exceed the post-expand include size due to too many episodes being listed or transcluded, they should be split into separate articles. Articles not including the current season (i.e. splits of earlier seasons) should disambiguate with (seasons X–Y). Articles including the current season should disambiguate with (seasons Z–present). The article without any season disambiguation in its title should be a disambiguation page listing all split articles. {{ List has been split}} should be used in each article, succeeding or preceding the listed episodes. Instances where disambiguation by year is more preferable (for example, Doctor Who and U.S. daytime soap operas) should be discussed on each article's talk page.
This could be included at either Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Episode listing or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#List articles. -- Alex TW 05:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
List of Casualty episodes* and List of Casualty episodes are very confusing and make it impossible to know which one is for what seasons- Whether or not you understand why it is the case, List of Casualty episodes* is not a separate article to List of Casualty episodes. It's a cache of the latter, a sub-page if you want. List of Casualty episodes is the LoE page for the series. List of Casualty episodes* is only a page that you have to look at because of the post expand include size limit. It's not directly a child of List of Casualty episodes nor is it a parent of the season articles. An analogy would be the case where Tom, a single father, has 20 children and has employed a nanny to look after the first 15. The nanny is not a parent, she's just a "child manager" for Tom who only manages the children. If you want to deal with the children you go to Tom. Tom = List of Casualty episodes while the nanny = List of Casualty episodes*. You don't need to know which children the nanny List of Casualty episodes* manages because Tom List of Casualty episodes tells you that. There is only one
|list_episodes=
in {{
Infobox television}} and, forCasualty, that points to
List of Casualty episodes, not
List of Casualty episodes*. This is the way all TV series work (or should), except for those where the episodes are all in the main article.I find it unbelievably hard to imagine that this is the only or best solution.- Several others have been discussed in the past. Using the asterisks minimises the amount of effort needed to maintain the articles. Essentially, new seasons only need to be pasted into List of Casualty episodes*. All other work is done at List of Casualty episodes and automatically transcluded to List of Casualty episodes*. List of Casualty episodes* has required no edits in the past 2 years other than removing an unnecessary template that was recently added. Based on my experience over the past more than 2.5 years with the problem this seems the best solution. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Of course List of Casualty episodes* does not require edits. It is a basically complete set, in which I mean that it will always (if page size limit stays the same) be seasons 1 to 20.- That's not what I meant. List of Casualty episodes* doesn't have separate menus or references sections, or even a series overview table. Almost all content including the lede, TOC, series overview table, notes, references, navboxes and even categories are transcluded from List of Casualty episodes using labelled section transclusion. This is completely different to standard LoE pages where only the episode tables are transcluded. The page is only 3kB in size while its post expand include size is 1,432kB. And no, it won't always be seasons 1 to 20. When List of Casualty episodes breaks the post expand include size again, the plan is to move more content as is necessary to List of Casualty episodes*. Again, we don't want our readers to have to navigate through more pages than is necessary.
A READER wanting to read the article for seasons 1 to 20 won't be able to read it at List of Casualty episodes as it just does not exist there.- This is the case for any series. The articles for seasons are all elsewhere. That's not an issue. The pages, as they are now, are set to provide linking to the appropriate sections as necessary. If a reader wants to look at the list for series 3 while they're looking at List of Casualty episodes they'll be taken to the correct spot on List of Casualty episodes*. If they want to go to series 32 while they're looking at List of Casualty episodes* they'll be taken to the correct spot on List of Casualty episodes. They'll be sent to the correct spot on the correct page regardless of which page they're looking at.
if really the issue with the page is that it's transcluding too much useless data and the software does not have "smarter" options, then the best solution is a real sub page at the season level - so The Simpsons (season 1)/episodes which would then be transcluded to both the season page and the list page.- I don't see that as necessary at all, or desirable for that matter. It would require a lot more effort when creating season pages, totally different to what we do now. The present situation is far simpler. It requires minimal editing of season pages. Your suggestion would be a major change to the way we work.
this is another one of those examples where "editors are supposed to serve template editors", and not the other way around- Not at all. It has nothing to do with templates. It's all about working around a deficiency in the software that really only affects TV articles.
We should be adhering to naming conventions.- There is no relevant naming convention here. We do have to work within the limits of the Wikimedia software. We don't have a choice there. It's not something that we can fix. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
List of Casualty episodes* is not a separate article to List of Casualty episodesand
That's not what I meant. List of Casualty episodes* doesn't have separate menus or references sections, or even a series overview tableand
Again, we don't want our readers to have to navigate through more pages than is necessary- first, lets both be clear we are using the same terminology as this discussion can't move on if we both call one thing differntly. List of Casualty episodes* and List of Casualty episodes are two different articles to a reader and will show up as two different search results.
List of Casualty episodes* is only a page that you have to look at because of the post expand include size limitand
A READER wanting to read the article for seasons 1 to 20 won't be able to read it at List of Casualty episodes as it just does not exist there. [mine] - This is the case for any series- so decide, is this a place a reader goes to or not? If a reader goes to this page, then they should understand what this page is.
Almost all content including the lede, TOC, series overview table, notes, references, navboxes and even categories are transcluded from List of Casualty episodes using labelled section transclusion- I know, which is horrible and which I agreed with an editor that tried changing it here.
The problem is not with the first 20 seasons, nor is it with the current size of this article as I've fixed this for now. Instead it is with the latest seasons that will cause List of The Simpsons episodes that will break. Moving seasons 16-20 to the article will break the article more quickly- this is because the way you are "fixing" it is flawed. Once you create an ok range which reaches the limit, you don't just continue on adding seasons just to break it. If adding 16-20 will break the current one, then the Simpsons will need a 3rd article. I've never understood the concern about how our poor old users will need to actively click one more mouse click. Also, the only this needs this kind of fix is because you prefer this way. Again, my solution works and will let you have all seasons in one list, but you prefer this way, which is cool, but then don't try and blame your fix on technical limitations.
I don't see that as necessary at all, or desirable for that matter. It would require a lot more effort when creating season pages, totally different to what we do now. The present situation is far simpler. It requires minimal editing of season pages. Your suggestion would be a major change to the way we work.- you don't. Which again, is cool, but then don't blame your bad fix on technical limitations. Also, my solution does not require
a lot more effort when creating season pages- it does require more effort in that you click another "create article" and link the transclude. So that's what? 30 seconds more? I guess our definitions of effort vary. Thinking about this a bit more, I'm not sure those 30 seconds are even close to the amount of time it takes you to manage the page limit each time.
There is no relevant naming convention here. We do have to work within the limits of the Wikimedia software. We don't have a choice there. It's not something that we can fix.and of course, lastly, still not addressing the point of conflict - why is the asterisk the only option? -- Gonnym ( talk) 18:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
No, you're still not getting it – there should not be a "main LoE page" in these case – the latter should be converted to a WP:DABPAGE. This eliminates the entire problem.- Let's get it clear. The only thing that is the problem is that you don't like the asterisk. The LoE page works fine and looks like every other TV LoE with only minor changes, just like every other LoE page. Your suggestion doesn't fix anything. Instead it makes the poor reader have to navigate through multiple pages instead of doing it from one. We should be aiming to make the reader's experience the same across the project. You'd probably like to make your two LoE pages different, with no transclusion, which is bound to lead to duplication errors. Transclusion is used with series overview tables and season articles specifically to eliminate these issues.
List of Casualty episodes* and List of Casualty episodes are two different articles to a reader- However, techncially they are not. The pages have been setup so moves between articles should be transparent, as I've already explained.
so decide, is this a place a reader goes to or not? If a reader goes to this page, then they should understand what this page is.- First stop for the reader should always be List of Casualty episodes. If they click on series 3 they will be taken to List of Casualty episodes* without needing to understand why or how it happens. When they click on series 30 they will be taken to List of Casualty episodes as already explained. List of Casualty episodes* is simply an extension to List of Casualty episodes created to get around the post expand include size limit. I've already explained this.
I know, which is horrible- It's only horrible because you don't understand it. At one stage, people thought transclusion was horrible and instead duplicated content resulting in multiple articles that were not in sync with each other. The series overview table in the main series article was often different to the one in the LoE page and episode tables in season articles were also different to the LoE page. Transclusion fixed that. LST is simply an extension to the simple transclusion that we generally use. It allows us to be more specific in what is transcluded. We could actually use it all the time but there isn't really a need.
I agreed with an editor that tried changing it here.- Looking at the discussion I see that AlexTheWhovian disagreed with you for quite valid reasons.
Once you create an ok range which reaches the limit, you don't just continue on adding seasons just to break it. If adding 16-20 will break the current one, then the Simpsons will need a 3rd article.- This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the process because that's not what we do. The post expand include size limit is 2MB. When the LoE page breaks we don't create a new page by moving 2MB over to it. We pick the minimum number of seasons to move across, as I have already explained to you, in order to stop the LoE page breaking. With The Simpsons, the article containing seasons 1-20 is only at 83% of the maximum size. The LoE page is only at 57% so it has a long way to go before we'd need to move any more content out of it. There's probably a good 8 years before we have to look at doing that. So far, no TV series has come close to needing 3 pages so I really don't see your point.
I've never understood the concern about how our poor old users will need to actively click one more mouse click.- It's not just one mouse click. That's a gross over-simplification. If you're trying to navigate between episodes those clicks all add up and if you're navigating between seasons you're either going to have to open multiple browser tabs or lose your place. The smaller the number of pages that a reader has to navigate the better.
Also, the only this needs this kind of fix is because you prefer this way.- No, we've tried multiple ways of implementing fixes, including removal of as many templates as could be removed (even some that shouldn't - they all contribute) and, after TWO YEARS at List of The Simpsons episodes, this was found to be the best way.
my solution works and will let you have all seasons in one list- I'm sorry but what exactly was your proposal? Regardless, you can't have all of the seasons in one list. This is what we normally do and several pages have broken precisely because some series can't have all episodes in one list.
don't try and blame your fix on technical limitations.- WP:IDHT? The technical limitations are there and we have to work around them. If it wasn't for the technical limitations we wouldn't have had to implement a fix.
it does require more effort in that you click another "create article" and link the transclude.- I'm sorry but I'm still not understanding what your proposal actually is. What do you mean by "link the transclude"?
and of course, lastly, still not addressing the point of conflict - why is the asterisk the only option?- And again, I didn't say it was the only option. I said it was the best option, based on over 2.5 years of practical involvement with this problem. I've also explained why it's the best, although really it could be any single character.
a larger pool of uninvolved editors- Those editors being people who obviously don't understand the technical issues. Gonnym's comments demonstrate this. There are a number of questions for which answers have already been provided. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 08:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
AussieLegend's explanation of technical limitations makes no sense to me; I agree with the multiple other editors who support not using that setup. Using hacks to work around the 2MB page-size limit are bound to fail and should be avoided; I still don't see how the asterisk is better than any other page name for transclusions. Occasional page moves (on the order of one per decade) are not at all problematic, and certainly don't justify using confusing page names to avoid (series 21-present) constructions. The concept of "subpages" is very intentionally not used in article space.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 16:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
it seems like there was a hack to use substs and multiple levels of templates to avoid hitting the transclusion limits; I don't understand any of that.- I don't understand it either because that wasn't done. Where did you get that from? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Wow, what a wall of text above. I'm the guy who engineered this unique solution that AussieLegend is so adamantly defending. While the technical issues that led me to do this have mostly been fixed, so there isn't really a strong technical rationale for this solution as there was when I implemented it on List of the Simpsons episodes in February 2016, there is still a logical argument for keeping it. I'll explain point-by-point.
{{#invoke:Episode list|sublist}}
, so replacing {{Episode list/sublist}}
with {{#invoke:Episode list|sublist}}
in the source code of the episode articles avoids transcluding a lot of content, which both renders the page more efficiently for our readers and allows these lists to grow larger before a split becomes necessary.Apparently we can track split episode-lists by watching Pages that transclude Template:List has been split. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Five episode lists have been split: {{ List has been split}} (also at least one "Japanese list", which uses different templates)
The last one, Doctor Who, has a natural splitting point.
I think that covers everything. Let me know if there's something I neglected to cover or that needs further explanation. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see where WP:NCTV addresses this issue.And that is precisely why I started this very discussion, to gain some sort of standard on naming techniques for splits. I see the asterisks note, I still disagree with it. The articles should be full article splits named properly, not just some technical attempt. For what it's worth, I also disagree with the replacing of
{{Episode list/sublist}}
with {{#invoke:Episode list|sublist}}
. --
Alex
TW 02:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
A generic title like this allows the specific number of series included on the page to be changed, without the need to move the page.- This also seems to me unneeded. Just decide that 1 page is until a certain season and never add more. No need to keep increasing until reaching the very end of the limit. The argument about this actually being 1 page with a "Seamless" connection is also wrong. When I first encountered this page I had a bad experience as I was logically scrolling to reach a certain point as I thought I'm in the same page, but then noticed that I was in a different page and the scroll bar on the side represented something completely different. These are two pages. They act as two pages and they look like two pages. Even if the content is transluded. -- Gonnym ( talk) 19:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Wow, what a wall of text above.And as for
I later considered whether using an invisible character instead of the asterisk would have been better- good Lord, this would have been even worse. Two (apparently) identical titles, editors unable to determine the correct one for the "cache" list and the most recent list, not being able to link it properly from their keyboard, all so
readers can't see any difference, which just supports the idea that it would make it worse for editors and readers alike. I can guarantee that that would be a speedy objection. -- Alex TW 03:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if more eyes from WP:NCTV could take a look at Talk:New Year's Eve Live (CNN program)#Requested move 27 September 2018 and Talk:NFL GameDay (NFL Network show)#Requested move 27 September 2018 as these two could use more participants. Similarly, Talk:CNN Newsroom (CNNI)#Requested move 2 October 2018 has had no responses yet. Thanks. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts on the title for Space / Time? It was originally located at Space and Time (Doctor Who) in 2011, but I'm not sure either title is the best for the article. -- Alex TW 01:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
How would you disambiguate a TV play article (that needs disambiguation):
The guideline doesn't cover this but there are enough articles on this subject that at least one discussion should cover this. -- Gonnym ( talk) 16:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I think its awkward to consider any live presentation as a "film" and I know of no definition in WP:NCTV or WP:NCFILM which allows such. I'm thinking that (TV program) should be used, but I suppose we'd have to view individual cases and see what the references ultimately classify them as. -- Netoholic @ 16:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no requirement that we restrict disambiguations to suggestions explicitly listed at the relevant guideline. TV play is a thing on WP. That's more than adequate for us to use it, and it's the most appropriate and accurate term. We should not be misleading users by referring to these TV plays as films. -- В²C ☎ 17:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
which is a live drama performance broadcast from the television studio or, later, put on the tape.but later says
The term "television play" is a partial misnomer. Although the earliest works were marked by television drama drawing on its theatrical roots, with live performances telecast from the television studio, a shift towards shooting on film occurred in the late 1970s, utilising techniques and working methods common in the cinema, but use of the term has persistedand reading the article on Play for Today and looking into some of its entries, it seems that these "plays" are actually films, as they are not shot and aired live. Edna, the Inebriate Woman was shot in November and December 1970 and aired on on 21 October 1971. In this situation, in my opionion, we shouldn't follow what the original sources say. If the "play" is a film, then it's a film. No need to keep this mistake alive. Inside the article it could be mentioned that at the time it was known as a TV play. Now regardless to this all, there is another issue, which is raised in the discussion below this, these TV plays/films are part of a series, so these should probably be disambiguated with the series name. -- Gonnym ( talk) 17:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Do we still need this line which is currently in the guideline: "Important: Write U.S. with periods, but write UK without periods (full stops) as per WP:NCA" in the Additional disambiguation section. While MOS:US once said to use only U.S., it no longer does. Both US and U.S. are acceptable, provided they are used consistently within an article. Do the naming conventions here really need to favour one over the other? -- Whats new? (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is not relevant... no one who has a decent command of the English language will look at Name of series (US TV series) and not be able to recognize it or understand it. One could argue WP:CONSISTENCY applies only to the actual title and not the disambiguator but that is possibly stretching. The thing is, switching to "American" and "British" is not really appropriate for an international audience because "American" often only means "United States" to English-speaking folks... much of South/Central America takes issue with the adjective being used to refer solely to the US and so that wouldn't actually be a move towards WP:COMMONALITY.
Of course what really needs to happen is that very stubborn people from the US who cling to requiring full points for their country's acronym need to embrace WP:COMMONALITY, accept the shift away from using them (even in their own country), honour the fact Wikipedia is not a US-based project, and get on board with MOS:ABBR. I find it pretty appalling that there's a US-specific exception to MOS:ABBR but there you go, so far it stands. They're still not metric, either, so what can you do?
With MOS:US as it currently stands, it makes sense to keep the country-based disambiguator for television series from the United States as "(U.S. TV series)", but the wording explaining this should definitely be changed. Maybe something like:
Definitely the bolded and italicized "Important:" label needs to be dropped, however, as total overkill because I can assure you that if anyone makes the "mistake" of using "(US TV series)" as the disambiguator for the actual article page in the current climate, that will get "fixed" very quickly. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 02:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The thing is, switching to "American" and "British" is not really appropriate for an international audience because "American" often only means "United States" to English-speaking folks... much of South/Central America takes issue with the adjective being used to refer solely to the US and so that wouldn't actually be a move towards WP:COMMONALITY.Except every other WP/NC except this one is using "American" and "British" to disambiguate (including WP:BLPs). (And it's still listed at List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations, which people around here keep sending me too, so there's no claim that it's not "official".) So that argument utterly fails. Face it: WP:NCTV is the only naming convention guideline that is stubbornly, and unreasonably, sticking it use of abbreviations for the United States and the United Kingdom as disambiguators. Pretty much literally nobody else around here is doing that, so it's this project that's out of step on this. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The Case of the Restless Redhead (Perry Mason) is unnecessary disambiguation, yes? – This should be at The Case of the Restless Redhead, correct?... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
If you have a minute, I would appreciate comments on Talk:Studio One (UAE TV program)#Requested move 3 November 2018. Thank you. -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
(Context: IJBall added one of the relevant articles to a maint. category)
Hallmark Hall of Fame is the "longest-running primetime series in the history of television" (1951–). Its episodes are films, often original productions of plays. This presents us with an edge case for the naming conventions, exemplified by these two episodes:
Episode 4.13 can't be Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame)
because that conflicts with episode 10.2. Episode 10.2 is strictly speaking misnamed, because it's an episode of a TV series and should be at Episode name (series name), but that conflicts with 4.2. In other words, I've concluded—much to my, and apparently also IJBall's, surprise—that the current name for 4.2 is actually the most correct one; albeit for a case not directly covered by these naming conventions (use Episode name (series name) plus dab using year if needed).
I don't really care a whole lot about what name/dab to use for these, but I rather feel it should be consistent; so I'm hoping those who do work in this area of the project could pick through the issue and come up with a consistent way to deal with this. Keep in mind that List of Hallmark Hall of Fame episodes has a hodgepodge of article names (and excessive redlinks, and EGGy link targets) that will probably need cleanup to match the guideline afterwards (and may or may not bear on the discussion).
Oh, and if someone could ping the relevant WikiProjects about this discussion I'd appreciate it. I'm not really sure whether this is WP:TV, WP:Film, or WP:DAB (or either or none or others or…). -- Xover ( talk) 19:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
<Episode name> (<TV series name> season <#>)
, so:
Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame season 4) and
Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame season 10).<Episode name> (<TV series debut year> <TV series name>)
, so:
A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone) and
A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone). This follows in the style of (<TV series debut year> TV series) for regular disambiguation. --
Gonnym (
talk) 14:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)<Episode name> (<TV series debut year> <TV series name>)
, so:
Tony (UK Skins series 1) and
Tony (U.S. Skins season 1). --
Gonnym (
talk) 07:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Any input/thought/comments on the above? I'm finding more and more examples but can't fix any as we can't agree on a style. There is also always use of double parenthesis which is starting to appear in more articles, such as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) (season 1), which if accepted can be used so an name like A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone) will become A Game of Pool (1959 TV series) (The Twilight Zone) / Tony (UK TV series) (Skins series 1) (which I'm not sure if is better). -- Gonnym ( talk) 07:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Gonnym, IJBall, and Netoholic: Thanks to all of you for keeping at this! I wonder if we might extract a list of pathological examples and a set of possible naming rules, and then summarize them in a table for easy overview. On that basis we might fruitfully solicit feedback from the TV and Film WikiProjects (or even a community-wide RfC if needed). Something along the lines of:
ID | Rule |
---|---|
A | Episode name (Series name) |
B | prefix disambiguator with episode year |
C | append series launch year to series name in disambiguator |
Current name | Associated series | A | A+B | A+B+C |
---|---|---|---|---|
Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954) | Hallmark Hall of Fame | Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) | Macbeth (1954 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode) | Macbeth (1954 Hallmark Hall of Fame 1951 episode) |
Macbeth (1960 American film) | Hallmark Hall of Fame | Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) | Macbeth (1960 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode) | Macbeth (1960 Hallmark Hall of Fame 1951 episode) |
A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1959) | The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series) | A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone) | A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone episode) | A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone 1959 episode) |
A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1985) | The Twilight Zone (1985 TV series) | A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone) | A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone episode) | A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone 1985 episode) |
Alo (Skins series 5) | Skins (UK TV series) | Alo (Skins) | Alo (2011 Skins episode) | Alo (2011 Skins 2007 episode) |
Alo (Skins series 6) | Skins (UK TV series) | Alo (Skins) | Alo (2012 Skins episode) | Alo (2012 Skins 2007 episode) |
Coronation Street Live (2000 episode) | Coronation Street | Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street) | Coronation Street Live (2000 Coronation Street episode) | Coronation Street Live (2000 Coronation Street 1960 episode) |
Coronation Street Live (2010 episode) | Coronation Street | Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street) | Coronation Street Live (2010 Coronation Street episode) | Coronation Street Live (2010 Coronation Street 1960 episode) |
Tony (Skins series 1) | Skins (UK TV series) | Tony (Skins) | Tony (2007 Skins episode) | Tony (2007 Skins 2007 episode) |
Tony (redlink) | Skins (North American TV series) | Tony (Skins) | Tony (2011 Skins episode) | Tony (2011 Skins 2011 episode) |
What immediately strikes me looking at the above table is that rule C is never going to make much sense in combination with A+B. At the same time, A+B alone are sufficient to clearly disambiguate the episode. It does fail to disambiguate which series it is associated with, but an argument can certainly be made that that is not required in the article's title (I'm not sure I'd be persuaded by it, but it can certainly be made).
Rule C might be replaced with a rule D that uses some kind of variant of multiple parentheticals—either Episode (dab) (dab) or Episode (ep dab (series dab))—but I can't imagine that ending in anything but insanity.
What are rules D, E, and F that we should add, and in what combinations should we apply them?
Should we adduce that disambiguation is only to be added when article titles are actually ambiguous? And that the same applies to each naming rule? That is, rule B is not applied if rule A alone is sufficient to resolve a naming collision? That might make rule C useful for something again in the table above (it would only kick in in the A+B+C column for The Twilight Zone and Skins episodes). -- Xover ( talk) 09:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
If there are multiple shows of the same name, include the disambiguation, similar to the above for TV series in the season description, for example, "The Apprentice (U.S. season 1)"and
Similar names should continue even if one version of the show has several more seasons than the other;, but then you have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#List articles which says
If the main TV series page title was disambiguated from other entertainment properties (e.g. other TV series, films, novels, etc.), related list pages may or may not need to be further disambiguated, depending on whether other list articles existwhich then produces ambiguous page names as List of Skins episodes. I personally don't like how the list section's exception was added and believe that all sub-articles of the main article should follow the same style, with maybe only losing the "(TV series)" disambiguation, if it is the only TV series and those articles are TV-centric (like list of episodes). So taking the season wording here, then yes, all episodes should have the same series name as the disambiguation. The problem, none of them are visually pleasing. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Type | Current name | A | B1 | B2 | C1 | C2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Two episodes with the same name in the same series | Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954) | Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) | Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954 episode) | Macbeth (1954 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode) | - | - |
Macbeth (1960 American film) | Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) | Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1960 episode) | Macbeth (1960 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode) | - | - | |
Two episodes with the same name in two different series with the same name from the same country | A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1959) | A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone) | A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone episode) | - | A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone season 3 episode) | A Game of Pool (1959 The Twilight Zone 1961 episode) |
A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone, 1985) | A Game of Pool (The Twilight Zone) | A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone episode) | - | A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone season 3 episode) | A Game of Pool (1985 The Twilight Zone 1989 episode) | |
Two episodes with the same name in the same series (using year) | Coronation Street Live (2000 episode) | Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street) | Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street 2000 episode) | - | - | - |
Coronation Street Live (2010 episode) | Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street) | Coronation Street Live (Coronation Street 2010 episode) | - | - | - | |
Two episodes with the same name in the same series (using series/season) | Alo (Skins series 5) | Alo (Skins) | Alo (Skins series 5) | - | Alo (Skins series 5 episode) | - |
Alo (Skins series 6) | Alo (Skins) | Alo (Skins series 6) | - | Alo (Skins series 6 episode) | - | |
Two episodes with the same name in the same series and in two different series with the same name from different countries | Tony (Skins series 1) | Tony (Skins) | Tony (UK Skins episode) | - | Tony (UK Skins series 1 episode) | - |
Tony (potential valid redirect) | Tony (Skins) | Tony (North American Skins episode) | - | Tony (North American Skins season 1 episode) | - |
Added the fixes I mentioned and the style I mentioned before. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The guideline does not talk about categories but I ran into an issue with category names that should be resolved. From my experience, the category structure of sub-categories follows the one of the parent.
In this scenario, look at the following category tree:
Notice that all categories continue with the parent style - "Angel (TV series)" except the season categories which are titled "Angel (season #) episodes". To me, the correct style would actually be "Angel (TV series) season # episodes". Thoughts? -- Gonnym ( talk) 17:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:VIP Brother 1#Requested move 28 November 2018. Alucard 16 ❯❯❯ chat? 03:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother 2005 (Finland)#Requested move 28 November 2018 . Alucard 16 ❯❯❯ chat? 07:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gran Hermano 1 (Spain)#Requested move 1 December 2018 . Alucard 16 ❯❯❯ chat? 13:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)