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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
Why does WP:NCTV use "U.S." when the country of broadcast is prefixed as a disambiguator (e.g. Supernatural (U.S. TV series)), but WP:NCFILM uses "American" (e.g. Split (2016 American film))? Shouldn't they use the same style? -- / Alex/ 21 12:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The abbreviations are preferred over United States and United Kingdom, for brevity., and (2) conjecture about using "British" in regards to what the term covers (just England, all of Great Britain, Ireland or not, etc.). Both can be overcome, but they're arguments that will likely come up from opposers. -- Whats new? (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I found a great American restaurant", your first assumption would be that I am talking about the style of cuisine, not referring to it being located within the United States or being founded there. But if I instead said "
I found a great U.S. restaurant", the meaning is clearer from the context. -- Netoholic @ 22:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I found a great American restaurant", your first assumption would be that I am talking about the style of cuisine, not referring to it being located within the United States or being founded there. But if I instead said "
I found a great U.S. restaurant", the meaning is clearer from the context. " This is a flawed argument. If the conversation were taking place outside of the United States I would assume that either "American" or "U.S." would refer to the style of food. If the conversation were taking place within the U.S. I would wonder about the mental competence of the speaker. Just as I would if I heard someone in Beijing say that they had found a "great Chinese restaurant". -- Khajidha ( talk) 12:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
P. F. Chang's China Bistro is an American Asian food restaurant" or "
P. F. Chang's China Bistro is an American restaurant chain which serves Asian foodmight both be read to mean that it is a fusion style or that it serves both American and Chinese cuisine. A clearer way to state that it is based in the United States and serves Asian cuisine is seen in the lead line actually in place in the article - "
P. F. Chang's China Bistro is an Asian-themed US casual dining restaurant chain". Its getting a bit off-topic, but its an example that shows that "U.S." is a preferred adjective to describe the country of origin over " American" which has many other potential connotations. -- Netoholic @ 00:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What term should NCTV use for shows from the United States and United Kingdom, when disambiguation by country is required? Should such articles use "U.S." and "UK", or should they use "American" and "British"? -- / Alex/ 21 02:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
To save space, acronyms should be used as disambiguators, when necessary. For example, "Great Northern Railway (U.S.)" and "Labour Party (UK)". The abbreviations are preferred over United States and United Kingdom, for brevity- so this RfC is completely out-of-bounds as the proposed change would directly conflict with that more general guideline. -- Netoholic @ 08:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
To save space, acronyms should be used as disambiguators. -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject, and
Acronyms may be used for parenthetical disambiguation(emphasis mine), not "must". -- / Alex/ 21 03:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
include additional information such as the country of origin ( adjective). "US" and "UK" are adjectival forms for countries, and are listed at List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations. The guideline later goes on to give Noise (2007 American film) as an example disambiguation, but doesn't explicitly state that 'American' is the preferred adjectival for the United States. And it doesn't say anything at all about UK vs. British. It seems to be an incidental detail that film titles settled on using 'American' and 'British', rather than some carefully considered policy. Also, as Netoholic points out, US/UK is consistent with naming conventions for many other domains.
Now that the RfC has been closed in favor of switching to "American" and "British" in NCTV disambiguation, we need to:
There may be other things that need to be done?... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 05:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
|list_episodes=
changed from "List of <series> (U.S. TV series) episodes" to "List of <series> (American TV series) episodes". [Off-topic remark: the parameter name here should really be changed to match the other 2 templates]|season_qualifier=
changed from "U.S." to "American" and from "UK" to "British".|episode_list=
changed from "List of <series> (U.S. TV series) episodes" to "List of <series> (American TV series) episodes".|series=
changed from "[[<series> (U.S. TV series)|<series>]]" to </nowiki>[[<series> (American TV series)|<series>]]</nowiki>|season_article=
changed from "<series> (U.S. season 4)" to "<series> (American season 4)".|episode_list=
changed from "List of <series> (U.S. TV series) episodes" to "List of <series> (American TV series) episodes".|name=
be changed to the new template name.|title=
has a piped link, update it to the new "American"/"British" style.Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TheSandBot 3, an initial bot run has been completed on 30 pages. If there are any issues, please leave a note at the BRFA. If there are no responses, this will be approved in 5 days. — xaosflux Talk 19:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I just saw this discussion due to the bot moves. I think it was a bad idea. "U.S." clearly refers to the USA, but "American" could refer to other parts of America (it's complicated). It would have been better to stick with "U.S." for clarity. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 07:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Required manual updates
|
List of Unforgettable episodes is showing "Expression error: Unexpected < operator" in the lead. That is due to use of the first template shown below. It needs to be replaced with the second because Unforgettable (U.S. TV series) has moved.
{{Aired episodes|title=Unforgettable|showpage=Unforgettable (U.S. TV series)|finished=all|seasons=4}} {{Aired episodes|title=Unforgettable|showpage=Unforgettable (American TV series)|finished=all|seasons=4}}
Something similar is needed at List of Supernatural episodes + List of Suits episodes + List of Shameless (American TV series) episodes (and perhaps more, as pages are refreshed). I am mentioning that here rather than fixing it myself because there are probably other things which need changing. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
|showpage=
change the country part. --
Gonnym (
talk) 09:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Other manual updates that need working on are updating the templates and categories linked at User:Alex 21/sandbox2; the templates need to have their "view" links updated and usages of the templates updated, and the categories need to be moved and updated at their respective articles. The manual moves at User:DannyS712/sandbox4/ User talk:Gonnym#NCTV page moves have all been completed. -- / Alex/ 21 05:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The category naming style for "television series by network" is all over the place. As an example here is what is found in Category:American television series by network:
Category:(network)
. For example:
Category:Apple TV+Category:(network) shows
. For example:
Category:ABC Family showsCategory:(network) network shows
. For
Category:HBO network showsCategory:(network) series
. For example:
Category:Cooking Channel seriesCategory:(network) television series
. For example:
Category:MTV television series Category:(network) television shows
. For example:
Category:Golf Channel television showsCategory:(network) programs
. For example:
Category:Fox Sports programsCategory:(network) original programs
. For example:
Category:Syfy original programsCategory:(network) original programming
. For example:
Category:Hulu original programmingCategory:(network) original productions
. For example:
Category:Here! original productionsThere really isn't any special reason for the variations as they all hold the same exact items - programs that have been shown on that network, and per WP:CATDEFINING that should be the first broadcast/airing network.
While we're on the subject of categories, the country subcategories in Category:Wikipedia categories named after television series are either named "televison series" or "television programs".
Again, no reason here as well and they should all have a consistent style. -- Gonnym ( talk) 14:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
According to List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations "Argentinian" should be used, but practice seems to be otherwise. There are 14 articles that use "(Argentine TV series)" and 1 that uses "(Argentine talk show)" vs 4 that use "(Argentinian TV series)" and 4 that use "(Argentinian season". Couldn't find no other TV or film related pages. On the category side of things ( Category:Television in Argentina) it seems "Argentine" is the one used. Seeing as how there really is no reason to have 2 different dabs used for the same topics (and seeing as how we don't do this for any other country), which one should be used? -- Gonnym ( talk) 06:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Start of thread, copied from
User talk:King of Hearts#WP:NCTV dispute tag
|
---|
I just noticed your to WP:NCTV. What exactly is that based on? I can't recall any dispute discussion on this matter on the page. The last proposed change was by me if I'm not mistaken. -- Gonnym ( talk) 21:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
|
My basic principle is that each parenthetically disambiguated title is quite similar to a normal title, with the possibility of a primary topic (or none). WP:INCDAB doesn't specify what to do in the case of nonexistent articles, because taken to the extreme you couldn't have Purple Rain (album) without adding "Prince" if some garage band released an album called "Purple Rain". So I think a good rule would be this: the element type is required when there are multiple entities from the show with the same name unless the element in question is the primary topic within the show and is the only element from the show with a standalone article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Arrow (TV series)#Transclusions. -- / Alex/ 21 09:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
In light of this ongoing RM and all the ridiculousness that came before it, I would like to ask why it matters if we use "miniseries" or "TV series" as the disambiguator? A miniseries is a TV series after all. Calidum 03:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thoughts on the disambiguation between What If... (web series), What/If and What If...? (TV series)? -- / Alex/ 21 15:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Should the following be titled "American" as opposed to "North American", per the recent updates to NCTV?
-- / Alex/ 21 10:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019. Discussion is about whether you can have a "List of episodes" article without having a "TV series" article. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Morning Show (American TV series)#Requested move 3 November 2019. This could use more eyes from knowledgeable editors from here, especially as this probably affects more than one article. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
This section is unclear.
First off, in practice it's an ordered list. That is, instead of burying the priority instructions inside the paragraphs, how about replacing use one of the following methods
with "These methods are in order of priority; use the first one that applies." To me, that makes it much easier for a reader to decide which to use than to find out mid-paragraph that Generally the preferred disambiguation when additional disambiguation is needed.
mid-paragraph.
Secondly, Generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same country.
isn't as clear as could be. Is this intended as a secondary disambiguator (after method #1 fails to disambiguate) or is this meant as a general instruction, independent of the first method? The logic suggests the former, the phrasing suggests the latter!
Currently; thanks to the unsynched natured of the two paragraphs a casual reading makes you ask "are there situations where both or neither method is applicable?". This state of ambiguousness does not do.
This section should use language that makes it as clear as possible what our conventions intend: either we present two equal methods, used for different purposes (and where we clearly spell out how to resolve conflicts if the two instructions can overlap!); or we present a hierarchy of methods where we're meant to use one after another until "enough" disambiguation is achieved.
In short, this section fails to clearly and concisely answer the simple questions: 1) do we disambiguate by country or year (or nature of show)? What is our primary and secondary disambiguator? Any exceptions? 2) do we intend for there to be leeway/overlap or not? If "yes", what are our instructions for resolving this? (Maybe let's first answer the questions, and the section will write itself after that.)
Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 11:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The current guideline does reflect the current consensus
I never said it didn't. Reflecting consensus can't be the only criteria. What I said was that the guidelines are unclear. Muddy. Ambivalent. And even that is okay - if the text owns it. Makes it clear to the reader that, yes, our advice isn't clear. This allows the reader to stop searching for something that isn't there; to stop trying to wrack his or her brain on what the advice "really tells me to do".
It is this last crucial part where we need to go beyond "does it reflect consensus?" and into "is this well written?". I maintain that, no, it is not well written. In fact, it reads exactly as if multiple editors have tweaked until everybody can live with it, but no further. And that's just not good enough for something that's routinely thrown at new wikipedians (at its ugliest with a message like "reverting per WP:NCTVUS") CapnZapp ( talk) 11:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I recently posted about the above articles at WT:TV earlier today. The first is a Canadian/American series that premiered in 1988. The second is a British series that is definitely set to premiere later this year. The third is an French/American (I think?) series that is set to premiere first in Belgium on October 29 this year ( per trailer). How should these articles be titled? I only just retitled them today (they were originally respectively titled War of the Worlds (TV series), The War of the Worlds (miniseries), War of the Worlds (Fox TV series)), but given the release dates, I'm not 100% certain. Thoughts? -- / Alex/ 21 04:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with sgeureka completely. It should be:
You can't have the BBC one listed as "British", while leaving the "French-American" by Canal+ and Fox as just "(2019 TV series)", even if the names are slightly different, as they're both being released around the same time. It will get confusing for people who don't realise there's 2 shows coming out at similar times, and they might not notice the disambiguation notes at the top of each page. I've only just heard about this French-American one, which I've just noticed was incorrectly listed as a British show on IMDB, so I've corrected that. Now going to have to go back and check the tags I've added to questions about the 2019 adaptions on Quora, to see if anyone was asking about the Canal+/Fox version, rather than the BBC version. Danstarr69 ( talk) 15:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
For many in the cast, the show’s cross-border nature held significant appeal. “It was incredibly liberating and exciting to work with a multi-national team, as opposed to just an English one,” says Elizabeth McGovern. “The nature of this story suits this international scope, and it was so stimulating to be directed by a Belgian filmmaker while working with an Irish actor alongside a French crew.”Thus, we could never use any country disambiguator, as there's too many countries to take note of, and the series is produced by multiple companies, so that only leaves the year acceptable. -- / Alex/ 21 01:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Having been slapped down for attempting to address this issue, I suppose I should point out that, as Danstarr69 says above, it seems ridiculous that we still have the two pages named thus:
Both are 2019 series, one being American-French, and the other British, as per the production companies. Alex 21's suggestion that the former can't be given a nationality because of some observation about the crew/cast by an actor is neither here nor there. The director being Belgian doesn't make it a Belgian production, any more than the BBC version's director makes it Portuguese. Nick Cooper ( talk) 15:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm getting sick of this now! Why does the USA think it rules the world?
Whenever something is from the UK (or another country), it has to be labelled British (or another nationality). Yet whenever something is American, it doesn't have to be labelled apparently. One rule for one and one rule for the other.
Same goes for co-productions. If a show is predominantly or entirely produced and broadcast by a British TV network, and an American company come in at a later date as co-producers or distributors, it suddenly becomes an British-American show, with the American networks taking all the credit for a show they usually didn't commission, fund or produce. Yet when a British company comes in as an actual co-producer with an American company from the start, it's usually just listed as an American show. Again one rule for one and one rule for the other.
If the 2019 British series has to be defined, then the 2019 French-American series has to be defined too. The Canal+ and Fox Networks Group series War of the Worlds (2019 TV series) should be listed as a French-American series.
Danstarr69 ( talk) 17:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Magnum, P.I.#Requested move 3 December 2019 . — YoungForever (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is to disambiguate all Hong Kong TV series (both pre-1997 and post-1997) as
(Hong Kong TV series)
. Editors found "Hong Kong TV series" to be more WP:RECOGNIZABLE than "Chinese TV series".
How should Hong Kong TV series pre-1997 be disambiguated (when needed)?
(Chinese TV series)
(Hong Kong TV series)
- usage is consistent with
Category:Television in Hong Kong(Hong Kongese TV series)
- usage follows the demonym(s) at
Hong Kong(#### TV series)
- year usage (keep in mind that there might be conflicts here)Not sure how many articles have this issue, but I've already ran into a couple that I didn't know what to do with. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Background: TV articles that need disambiguation can be disambiguated by the country adjective of the country the show originated from. So, as an example, if a show was broadcast in Mexico it would be TV series (Mexican TV series)
. Sub-divisions of a country are not used for disambiguating. Which means an article can be disambiguated as TV series (American TV series)
but not TV series (New York TV series)
; TV series (British TV series)
, but not TV series (Welsh TV series)
, TV series (Scottish TV series)
or TV series (Northern Ireland TV series)
.
The above discussion's input has the pre-1997 disambiguation for these articles at TV series (Hong Kong TV series)
. Should post-1997 TV articles about Hong Kong be disambiguated the same or use TV series (Chinese TV series)
. --
Gonnym (
talk) 17:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
WT:TV#RfC: Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title? czar 01:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
By omission, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Episode_and_character_articles seems to be encouraging unnecessary/excessive disambiguation in certain cases. WP:NCDAB reads (in part):
3. Parenthetical disambiguation. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:
the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (emblem)
This is why we have Jon Snow (character), which is a Good status article, instead of Jon Snow (Game of Thrones character) or Jon Snow (A Song of Ice and Fire character). The show name is unnecessary disambiguation, as there currently are no other notable characters named Jon Snow.
This issue came to my attention because a move request for The Mandalorian (Star Wars character) → The Mandalorian (character) was opposed per WP:NCTV. There are no examples addressing this particular issue, but the rest of the examples obviously lead editors to believe that any disambiguation should include the show/franchise name. And WP:NCDAB specifically indicates otherwise. There is not and will never be another character named The Mandalorian outside of Star Wars. And this is a wider problem than this one article, I've seen plenty of character articles which unnecessarily include the show/franchise, when the generic (character) would suffice.— TAnthony Talk 21:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Naming conventions applicable to certain subject areas are listed in the box to the right; these often contain detailed guidance about how to disambiguate.meaning that that framers of the disambiguation style delegated to subject-level NC the guidance on how to disambiguate articles in that subject. I personally see no issue and actually see it as superior to the "character" version. -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:R from television episode#RfC: The template wording's accuracy.
I've RfCed this because the page has very few active watchlisters other than the disputing parties. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Category:The Family Channel original programming is up for renaming here. The problem here is that there are 3 "The Family Channel" networks - The Family Channel (American TV network), Family Channel (Canadian TV network) and one without an article that leads to History of Freeform (TV channel)#The Family Channel (which is the one being renamed). If you have any ideas for a possible name, please add your comment to the discussion over there. Thanks. -- Gonnym ( talk) 08:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I would like to understand the justification for the policy of naming pages for individual seasons of TV shows by putting the season number in parentheses. Parentheses in article titles are, according to the policy at WP:PARENDIS, meant to be used for disambiguation. That is, the article title without the parenthetical part should be a name for the subject of the article, and the parenthetical part should be there to distinguish it from other things with the same name. So the subject of the article Cheers (season 3) should be something that, in some common context, would be referred to just as "Cheers".
But I do not believe that it is at all common to say "Cheers" to refer specifically to season 3 of Cheers. People would say "Cheers" to refer to the TV show as a whole, but not to refer to one particular season. And the same applies to any other TV show. So this naming convention seems to conflict with the policy on article titles. -- superioridad ( discusión) 18:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
We title the articles as "House of Cards (season 3)", because the article is about the specific subject of House of Cards, but what particular area of the series are we talking about? Season 3. Hence, it's use as a disambiguator.
Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. (emphasis mine)It's less important that everything follow every potential guideline to the letter, and more important that they serve the readership. If the current practice is actually an "exception", it's effectively a common-sense one, and all of the "follow the guideline to the letter" solutions are worse than current practices. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I've also always found this strange for the same reason. My preference would be using a comma, e.g. House of Cards, season 3" or "One Day at a Time, season 2 (2017)". -- Wikipedical ( talk) 19:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I see there was a 2015 RfC which didn't see enough input to form consensus, where the sentiment was that web/online series aren't TV series and need a different disambiguator. Times have changed, though, and many Netflix originals such as The Crown (TV series) are named like regular TV series. Does this reflect current consensus? If so, it should probably be written down in the guideline. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 12:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with IJBall. If you can frame the series around our conventional understanding of what a television program/series is, and can see it airing on a broadcast network, cable network, or streaming service, "TV series" is fine. "Web series" in my eyes, and as IJBall said, is more for something that is potentially a couple minutes long (but not approaching the 22 min length of "standard" half hour shows). They also more than likely are only debuting on online platforms such as CW Seed, or YouTube, etc. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
We don’t disambiguate shows as “broadcast series” or “cable series,” so “web series” seems so wrong to me for shows like The Crown. Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/Apple...TV+ shows are included at the Emmys and are written about in TV sections in news sources. Plus, regarding shows like Arrested Development that aired on broadcast and streamed online- to the casual reader it’s just a TV series. “Times have changed” since 2015, but honestly the same types of television content are being produced with varying distribution methods. Don’t think there’s an actual problem here to solve. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 03:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
My 2 cents: There a few series that originate on a US streaming platform, but premiere on TV in another country. (Example: A few Hulu series, because Hulu is not available outside the US.) Content- and presentation-wise, the series are mostly identical, so there is IMO no need to disambiguate. – sgeureka t• c 09:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Network 10 (an article that is brilliantly high-quality compared to Seven Network and Nine Network; nice job, Wikipedia) has just released several shows on 10 Play, prior to being broadcast. Example. Are these "web television" shows now? Or does being intended for broadcast first absolve them of their webness? And what of The Mindy Project, which is apparently both a "web" and "non-web" television show? Oh, DrPizza! ( talk) 13:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Quibi launched today, so we can expect this topic will be tested somewhat in the near future. -- Netoholic @ 14:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested to add their opinion, there is a proposal for a mass rename of television categories from "program"/"programme" to "shows" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Television program(me)s. -- Gonnym ( talk) 14:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
There's an edit-war involving a couple of editors on the article page that appears to be over the use of the word "show". There is no place for edit-warring and I have warned one of the editors who has reverted twice. Both Gonnym and IJBall have reverted some of Netoholic's changes so I invite Netoholic to this discussion to gain consensus for his changes instead of edit-warring. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
If the character's name is the same as the show's title or if the character appears in many different titles, use Character name (character)
- this is just an explicit statement of a disambiguation already used in the
WP:NCFILM guideline and used extensively across the TV article space for when both a character shares the name of the TV show it belongs to. You removed an example - "Samurai Jack (character) – character name same as the TV series title ( Samurai Jack)" - so I invite you to show where this is not correct. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
lack of any coherent reasonwhich is both not WP:AGF and just plain WP:UNCIVIL (and incorrect). And since 2 other editors aside from us have so far commented here so far, one who reverted you as well and one who hasn't commented on the issue, if you want the changes to be added, you'll need to start an RfC to show you have consensus. That is what we all have previously did when we wanted to amend the guideline. -- Gonnym ( talk) 14:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to thank Gonnym's for undoing Netoholic's latest reversion which is both disruptive, and obnoxious, when there are clearly at least two editors that oppose Netoholic's latest changes in their entirety – this is clearly edit warring. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 14:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that this is a terrible disambiguation choice – anyone have any proposals for a better article disambiguation choice here?... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Are these OK the way they are as per WP:SMALLDETAILS, or should they be moved to Blood and Water (Canadian TV series) and Blood & Water (South Africa TV series)?... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Blood & Water (TV series)#Requested move 24 May 2020. As per the discussion above. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
There is confusion as to what this article, The Haunting of Hill House (season 2), should be named. This current naming does not make sense and should be renamed back to just The Haunting of Bly Manor. Although it is the second series of The Haunting series, Bly Manor revolves around a new and different story and characters and are not related to Hill House. Either way, here is my comment from the talk page:
Something to note with the title of this show is that Bly Manor is a completely different story consisting of different characters to Hill House (yes I'm aware that this an anthology series). Naming this 'Season 2' of 'The Haunting of Hill House' doesn't make much sense as it's not a continuation of Hill House at all. It's why its titled differently. One suggestion could be to rename both current articles The Haunting of Hill House (TV series) and The Haunting of Hill House (season 2) to The Haunting (season 1) and The Haunting (season 2) respectively, as specified by trailers ("The Haunting continues") and social media platforms for the series. However, this change would not be supported by many sources. Another option could be to revert it to how it was beforehand to its respective title of The Haunting of Bly Manor to avoid confusion. To sum it all up, Bly Manor isn't a continuation of Hill House, and the 'season 2' title isn't justified. Happy to discuss this further. Looking forward to hearing other opinions on this. Thanks. KaitoNkmra23 ( talk) 12:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You may be interested in the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Dead fictional characters. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Above is a short list of episode titles that are the same as their series - most, but not all, being pilot episodes. These are technically correct as of the present wording of WP:NCTV#Episode and character articles, but also they are repetitious in the same way discussed in #RfC on character titling in special cases. Would like to get some opinions on these, if we think any change is in order, such as simply dropping to "Title (episode)" where additional disambiguation isn't needed in the same way we handle character articles. -- Netoholic @ 13:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this big change on June 30 by Gonnym, I've reverted so that we can discuss some specifics. Because some sections were both reordered and involved a lot of changes, my revert kept the changed section order to make comparison easier in the diff.
Aesthetically in Gonnym's edit, the conversion of prose sections to bullet lists and removal of indents from the examples make the page look flat and somewhat unreadable. Some of the one-off examples (like Star Trek in the Media franchises section) were moved out of prose into the long example lists, which disconnects them from the text they relate to. There is also little value in adding headers to every examples section, since we don't link to them, and actually can't in his version since they all use the same anchor (#Examples). The lines added to almost every section that say "name does not conflict with any other article" are all repetitive and redundant with the lead 1st paragraph (fundamentally, after that line, everything in NCTV is already about ambiguous titles).
Contrary to his edit summary ("No actual guideline change or amendment"), there were some functional changes to the page (~5600 characters added). His "Additional disambiguation" section exhaustively-defined certain formats for series and especially seasons, which are something NCTV (intentionally) didn't rigidly define because there are a number of factors at play for any particular case. Text was added about "shared universe name", which is debatable whether that is really different from a franchise name, and is still somewhat a special case - a change to be discussed. -- Netoholic @ 15:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
there were some functional changes to the page (~5600 characters added)- are almost just the examples.
There is also little value in adding headers to every examples section, since we don't link to them, and actually can't in his version since they all use the same anchor (#Examples)- that was done to a) comply with MOS:HEAD and b) allow an easy way to edit the section, which adds the edit button. If you really want to link to the examples (and I personally see no reason why), you can either change the section name, add an anchor or add a shortcut. You'll notice that I limited the ToC intentionally to not show them. -- Gonnym ( talk) 15:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
His "Additional disambiguation" section exhaustively-defined certain formats for series and especially seasons, which are something NCTV (intentionally) didn't rigidly define because there are a number of factors at play for any particular casenothing I added was not something that isn't part of the guideline. What exactly isn't? Year prefix? Country prefix? Year Country prefix? Year season prefix? Country season prefix?
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Shall the above guideline be added to WP:NCTV#Episode and character articles? -- Netoholic @ 14:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Survey
Discussion |
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 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
Why does WP:NCTV use "U.S." when the country of broadcast is prefixed as a disambiguator (e.g. Supernatural (U.S. TV series)), but WP:NCFILM uses "American" (e.g. Split (2016 American film))? Shouldn't they use the same style? -- / Alex/ 21 12:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The abbreviations are preferred over United States and United Kingdom, for brevity., and (2) conjecture about using "British" in regards to what the term covers (just England, all of Great Britain, Ireland or not, etc.). Both can be overcome, but they're arguments that will likely come up from opposers. -- Whats new? (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I found a great American restaurant", your first assumption would be that I am talking about the style of cuisine, not referring to it being located within the United States or being founded there. But if I instead said "
I found a great U.S. restaurant", the meaning is clearer from the context. -- Netoholic @ 22:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I found a great American restaurant", your first assumption would be that I am talking about the style of cuisine, not referring to it being located within the United States or being founded there. But if I instead said "
I found a great U.S. restaurant", the meaning is clearer from the context. " This is a flawed argument. If the conversation were taking place outside of the United States I would assume that either "American" or "U.S." would refer to the style of food. If the conversation were taking place within the U.S. I would wonder about the mental competence of the speaker. Just as I would if I heard someone in Beijing say that they had found a "great Chinese restaurant". -- Khajidha ( talk) 12:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
P. F. Chang's China Bistro is an American Asian food restaurant" or "
P. F. Chang's China Bistro is an American restaurant chain which serves Asian foodmight both be read to mean that it is a fusion style or that it serves both American and Chinese cuisine. A clearer way to state that it is based in the United States and serves Asian cuisine is seen in the lead line actually in place in the article - "
P. F. Chang's China Bistro is an Asian-themed US casual dining restaurant chain". Its getting a bit off-topic, but its an example that shows that "U.S." is a preferred adjective to describe the country of origin over " American" which has many other potential connotations. -- Netoholic @ 00:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What term should NCTV use for shows from the United States and United Kingdom, when disambiguation by country is required? Should such articles use "U.S." and "UK", or should they use "American" and "British"? -- / Alex/ 21 02:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
To save space, acronyms should be used as disambiguators, when necessary. For example, "Great Northern Railway (U.S.)" and "Labour Party (UK)". The abbreviations are preferred over United States and United Kingdom, for brevity- so this RfC is completely out-of-bounds as the proposed change would directly conflict with that more general guideline. -- Netoholic @ 08:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
To save space, acronyms should be used as disambiguators. -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject, and
Acronyms may be used for parenthetical disambiguation(emphasis mine), not "must". -- / Alex/ 21 03:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
include additional information such as the country of origin ( adjective). "US" and "UK" are adjectival forms for countries, and are listed at List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations. The guideline later goes on to give Noise (2007 American film) as an example disambiguation, but doesn't explicitly state that 'American' is the preferred adjectival for the United States. And it doesn't say anything at all about UK vs. British. It seems to be an incidental detail that film titles settled on using 'American' and 'British', rather than some carefully considered policy. Also, as Netoholic points out, US/UK is consistent with naming conventions for many other domains.
Now that the RfC has been closed in favor of switching to "American" and "British" in NCTV disambiguation, we need to:
There may be other things that need to be done?... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 05:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
|list_episodes=
changed from "List of <series> (U.S. TV series) episodes" to "List of <series> (American TV series) episodes". [Off-topic remark: the parameter name here should really be changed to match the other 2 templates]|season_qualifier=
changed from "U.S." to "American" and from "UK" to "British".|episode_list=
changed from "List of <series> (U.S. TV series) episodes" to "List of <series> (American TV series) episodes".|series=
changed from "[[<series> (U.S. TV series)|<series>]]" to </nowiki>[[<series> (American TV series)|<series>]]</nowiki>|season_article=
changed from "<series> (U.S. season 4)" to "<series> (American season 4)".|episode_list=
changed from "List of <series> (U.S. TV series) episodes" to "List of <series> (American TV series) episodes".|name=
be changed to the new template name.|title=
has a piped link, update it to the new "American"/"British" style.Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TheSandBot 3, an initial bot run has been completed on 30 pages. If there are any issues, please leave a note at the BRFA. If there are no responses, this will be approved in 5 days. — xaosflux Talk 19:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I just saw this discussion due to the bot moves. I think it was a bad idea. "U.S." clearly refers to the USA, but "American" could refer to other parts of America (it's complicated). It would have been better to stick with "U.S." for clarity. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 07:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Required manual updates
|
List of Unforgettable episodes is showing "Expression error: Unexpected < operator" in the lead. That is due to use of the first template shown below. It needs to be replaced with the second because Unforgettable (U.S. TV series) has moved.
{{Aired episodes|title=Unforgettable|showpage=Unforgettable (U.S. TV series)|finished=all|seasons=4}} {{Aired episodes|title=Unforgettable|showpage=Unforgettable (American TV series)|finished=all|seasons=4}}
Something similar is needed at List of Supernatural episodes + List of Suits episodes + List of Shameless (American TV series) episodes (and perhaps more, as pages are refreshed). I am mentioning that here rather than fixing it myself because there are probably other things which need changing. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
|showpage=
change the country part. --
Gonnym (
talk) 09:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Other manual updates that need working on are updating the templates and categories linked at User:Alex 21/sandbox2; the templates need to have their "view" links updated and usages of the templates updated, and the categories need to be moved and updated at their respective articles. The manual moves at User:DannyS712/sandbox4/ User talk:Gonnym#NCTV page moves have all been completed. -- / Alex/ 21 05:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The category naming style for "television series by network" is all over the place. As an example here is what is found in Category:American television series by network:
Category:(network)
. For example:
Category:Apple TV+Category:(network) shows
. For example:
Category:ABC Family showsCategory:(network) network shows
. For
Category:HBO network showsCategory:(network) series
. For example:
Category:Cooking Channel seriesCategory:(network) television series
. For example:
Category:MTV television series Category:(network) television shows
. For example:
Category:Golf Channel television showsCategory:(network) programs
. For example:
Category:Fox Sports programsCategory:(network) original programs
. For example:
Category:Syfy original programsCategory:(network) original programming
. For example:
Category:Hulu original programmingCategory:(network) original productions
. For example:
Category:Here! original productionsThere really isn't any special reason for the variations as they all hold the same exact items - programs that have been shown on that network, and per WP:CATDEFINING that should be the first broadcast/airing network.
While we're on the subject of categories, the country subcategories in Category:Wikipedia categories named after television series are either named "televison series" or "television programs".
Again, no reason here as well and they should all have a consistent style. -- Gonnym ( talk) 14:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
According to List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations "Argentinian" should be used, but practice seems to be otherwise. There are 14 articles that use "(Argentine TV series)" and 1 that uses "(Argentine talk show)" vs 4 that use "(Argentinian TV series)" and 4 that use "(Argentinian season". Couldn't find no other TV or film related pages. On the category side of things ( Category:Television in Argentina) it seems "Argentine" is the one used. Seeing as how there really is no reason to have 2 different dabs used for the same topics (and seeing as how we don't do this for any other country), which one should be used? -- Gonnym ( talk) 06:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Start of thread, copied from
User talk:King of Hearts#WP:NCTV dispute tag
|
---|
I just noticed your to WP:NCTV. What exactly is that based on? I can't recall any dispute discussion on this matter on the page. The last proposed change was by me if I'm not mistaken. -- Gonnym ( talk) 21:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
|
My basic principle is that each parenthetically disambiguated title is quite similar to a normal title, with the possibility of a primary topic (or none). WP:INCDAB doesn't specify what to do in the case of nonexistent articles, because taken to the extreme you couldn't have Purple Rain (album) without adding "Prince" if some garage band released an album called "Purple Rain". So I think a good rule would be this: the element type is required when there are multiple entities from the show with the same name unless the element in question is the primary topic within the show and is the only element from the show with a standalone article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Arrow (TV series)#Transclusions. -- / Alex/ 21 09:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
In light of this ongoing RM and all the ridiculousness that came before it, I would like to ask why it matters if we use "miniseries" or "TV series" as the disambiguator? A miniseries is a TV series after all. Calidum 03:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thoughts on the disambiguation between What If... (web series), What/If and What If...? (TV series)? -- / Alex/ 21 15:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Should the following be titled "American" as opposed to "North American", per the recent updates to NCTV?
-- / Alex/ 21 10:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019. Discussion is about whether you can have a "List of episodes" article without having a "TV series" article. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Morning Show (American TV series)#Requested move 3 November 2019. This could use more eyes from knowledgeable editors from here, especially as this probably affects more than one article. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
This section is unclear.
First off, in practice it's an ordered list. That is, instead of burying the priority instructions inside the paragraphs, how about replacing use one of the following methods
with "These methods are in order of priority; use the first one that applies." To me, that makes it much easier for a reader to decide which to use than to find out mid-paragraph that Generally the preferred disambiguation when additional disambiguation is needed.
mid-paragraph.
Secondly, Generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same country.
isn't as clear as could be. Is this intended as a secondary disambiguator (after method #1 fails to disambiguate) or is this meant as a general instruction, independent of the first method? The logic suggests the former, the phrasing suggests the latter!
Currently; thanks to the unsynched natured of the two paragraphs a casual reading makes you ask "are there situations where both or neither method is applicable?". This state of ambiguousness does not do.
This section should use language that makes it as clear as possible what our conventions intend: either we present two equal methods, used for different purposes (and where we clearly spell out how to resolve conflicts if the two instructions can overlap!); or we present a hierarchy of methods where we're meant to use one after another until "enough" disambiguation is achieved.
In short, this section fails to clearly and concisely answer the simple questions: 1) do we disambiguate by country or year (or nature of show)? What is our primary and secondary disambiguator? Any exceptions? 2) do we intend for there to be leeway/overlap or not? If "yes", what are our instructions for resolving this? (Maybe let's first answer the questions, and the section will write itself after that.)
Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 11:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The current guideline does reflect the current consensus
I never said it didn't. Reflecting consensus can't be the only criteria. What I said was that the guidelines are unclear. Muddy. Ambivalent. And even that is okay - if the text owns it. Makes it clear to the reader that, yes, our advice isn't clear. This allows the reader to stop searching for something that isn't there; to stop trying to wrack his or her brain on what the advice "really tells me to do".
It is this last crucial part where we need to go beyond "does it reflect consensus?" and into "is this well written?". I maintain that, no, it is not well written. In fact, it reads exactly as if multiple editors have tweaked until everybody can live with it, but no further. And that's just not good enough for something that's routinely thrown at new wikipedians (at its ugliest with a message like "reverting per WP:NCTVUS") CapnZapp ( talk) 11:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I recently posted about the above articles at WT:TV earlier today. The first is a Canadian/American series that premiered in 1988. The second is a British series that is definitely set to premiere later this year. The third is an French/American (I think?) series that is set to premiere first in Belgium on October 29 this year ( per trailer). How should these articles be titled? I only just retitled them today (they were originally respectively titled War of the Worlds (TV series), The War of the Worlds (miniseries), War of the Worlds (Fox TV series)), but given the release dates, I'm not 100% certain. Thoughts? -- / Alex/ 21 04:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with sgeureka completely. It should be:
You can't have the BBC one listed as "British", while leaving the "French-American" by Canal+ and Fox as just "(2019 TV series)", even if the names are slightly different, as they're both being released around the same time. It will get confusing for people who don't realise there's 2 shows coming out at similar times, and they might not notice the disambiguation notes at the top of each page. I've only just heard about this French-American one, which I've just noticed was incorrectly listed as a British show on IMDB, so I've corrected that. Now going to have to go back and check the tags I've added to questions about the 2019 adaptions on Quora, to see if anyone was asking about the Canal+/Fox version, rather than the BBC version. Danstarr69 ( talk) 15:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
For many in the cast, the show’s cross-border nature held significant appeal. “It was incredibly liberating and exciting to work with a multi-national team, as opposed to just an English one,” says Elizabeth McGovern. “The nature of this story suits this international scope, and it was so stimulating to be directed by a Belgian filmmaker while working with an Irish actor alongside a French crew.”Thus, we could never use any country disambiguator, as there's too many countries to take note of, and the series is produced by multiple companies, so that only leaves the year acceptable. -- / Alex/ 21 01:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Having been slapped down for attempting to address this issue, I suppose I should point out that, as Danstarr69 says above, it seems ridiculous that we still have the two pages named thus:
Both are 2019 series, one being American-French, and the other British, as per the production companies. Alex 21's suggestion that the former can't be given a nationality because of some observation about the crew/cast by an actor is neither here nor there. The director being Belgian doesn't make it a Belgian production, any more than the BBC version's director makes it Portuguese. Nick Cooper ( talk) 15:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm getting sick of this now! Why does the USA think it rules the world?
Whenever something is from the UK (or another country), it has to be labelled British (or another nationality). Yet whenever something is American, it doesn't have to be labelled apparently. One rule for one and one rule for the other.
Same goes for co-productions. If a show is predominantly or entirely produced and broadcast by a British TV network, and an American company come in at a later date as co-producers or distributors, it suddenly becomes an British-American show, with the American networks taking all the credit for a show they usually didn't commission, fund or produce. Yet when a British company comes in as an actual co-producer with an American company from the start, it's usually just listed as an American show. Again one rule for one and one rule for the other.
If the 2019 British series has to be defined, then the 2019 French-American series has to be defined too. The Canal+ and Fox Networks Group series War of the Worlds (2019 TV series) should be listed as a French-American series.
Danstarr69 ( talk) 17:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Magnum, P.I.#Requested move 3 December 2019 . — YoungForever (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is to disambiguate all Hong Kong TV series (both pre-1997 and post-1997) as
(Hong Kong TV series)
. Editors found "Hong Kong TV series" to be more WP:RECOGNIZABLE than "Chinese TV series".
How should Hong Kong TV series pre-1997 be disambiguated (when needed)?
(Chinese TV series)
(Hong Kong TV series)
- usage is consistent with
Category:Television in Hong Kong(Hong Kongese TV series)
- usage follows the demonym(s) at
Hong Kong(#### TV series)
- year usage (keep in mind that there might be conflicts here)Not sure how many articles have this issue, but I've already ran into a couple that I didn't know what to do with. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Background: TV articles that need disambiguation can be disambiguated by the country adjective of the country the show originated from. So, as an example, if a show was broadcast in Mexico it would be TV series (Mexican TV series)
. Sub-divisions of a country are not used for disambiguating. Which means an article can be disambiguated as TV series (American TV series)
but not TV series (New York TV series)
; TV series (British TV series)
, but not TV series (Welsh TV series)
, TV series (Scottish TV series)
or TV series (Northern Ireland TV series)
.
The above discussion's input has the pre-1997 disambiguation for these articles at TV series (Hong Kong TV series)
. Should post-1997 TV articles about Hong Kong be disambiguated the same or use TV series (Chinese TV series)
. --
Gonnym (
talk) 17:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
WT:TV#RfC: Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title? czar 01:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
By omission, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Episode_and_character_articles seems to be encouraging unnecessary/excessive disambiguation in certain cases. WP:NCDAB reads (in part):
3. Parenthetical disambiguation. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:
the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (emblem)
This is why we have Jon Snow (character), which is a Good status article, instead of Jon Snow (Game of Thrones character) or Jon Snow (A Song of Ice and Fire character). The show name is unnecessary disambiguation, as there currently are no other notable characters named Jon Snow.
This issue came to my attention because a move request for The Mandalorian (Star Wars character) → The Mandalorian (character) was opposed per WP:NCTV. There are no examples addressing this particular issue, but the rest of the examples obviously lead editors to believe that any disambiguation should include the show/franchise name. And WP:NCDAB specifically indicates otherwise. There is not and will never be another character named The Mandalorian outside of Star Wars. And this is a wider problem than this one article, I've seen plenty of character articles which unnecessarily include the show/franchise, when the generic (character) would suffice.— TAnthony Talk 21:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Naming conventions applicable to certain subject areas are listed in the box to the right; these often contain detailed guidance about how to disambiguate.meaning that that framers of the disambiguation style delegated to subject-level NC the guidance on how to disambiguate articles in that subject. I personally see no issue and actually see it as superior to the "character" version. -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:R from television episode#RfC: The template wording's accuracy.
I've RfCed this because the page has very few active watchlisters other than the disputing parties. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Category:The Family Channel original programming is up for renaming here. The problem here is that there are 3 "The Family Channel" networks - The Family Channel (American TV network), Family Channel (Canadian TV network) and one without an article that leads to History of Freeform (TV channel)#The Family Channel (which is the one being renamed). If you have any ideas for a possible name, please add your comment to the discussion over there. Thanks. -- Gonnym ( talk) 08:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I would like to understand the justification for the policy of naming pages for individual seasons of TV shows by putting the season number in parentheses. Parentheses in article titles are, according to the policy at WP:PARENDIS, meant to be used for disambiguation. That is, the article title without the parenthetical part should be a name for the subject of the article, and the parenthetical part should be there to distinguish it from other things with the same name. So the subject of the article Cheers (season 3) should be something that, in some common context, would be referred to just as "Cheers".
But I do not believe that it is at all common to say "Cheers" to refer specifically to season 3 of Cheers. People would say "Cheers" to refer to the TV show as a whole, but not to refer to one particular season. And the same applies to any other TV show. So this naming convention seems to conflict with the policy on article titles. -- superioridad ( discusión) 18:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
We title the articles as "House of Cards (season 3)", because the article is about the specific subject of House of Cards, but what particular area of the series are we talking about? Season 3. Hence, it's use as a disambiguator.
Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. (emphasis mine)It's less important that everything follow every potential guideline to the letter, and more important that they serve the readership. If the current practice is actually an "exception", it's effectively a common-sense one, and all of the "follow the guideline to the letter" solutions are worse than current practices. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I've also always found this strange for the same reason. My preference would be using a comma, e.g. House of Cards, season 3" or "One Day at a Time, season 2 (2017)". -- Wikipedical ( talk) 19:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I see there was a 2015 RfC which didn't see enough input to form consensus, where the sentiment was that web/online series aren't TV series and need a different disambiguator. Times have changed, though, and many Netflix originals such as The Crown (TV series) are named like regular TV series. Does this reflect current consensus? If so, it should probably be written down in the guideline. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 12:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with IJBall. If you can frame the series around our conventional understanding of what a television program/series is, and can see it airing on a broadcast network, cable network, or streaming service, "TV series" is fine. "Web series" in my eyes, and as IJBall said, is more for something that is potentially a couple minutes long (but not approaching the 22 min length of "standard" half hour shows). They also more than likely are only debuting on online platforms such as CW Seed, or YouTube, etc. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
We don’t disambiguate shows as “broadcast series” or “cable series,” so “web series” seems so wrong to me for shows like The Crown. Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/Apple...TV+ shows are included at the Emmys and are written about in TV sections in news sources. Plus, regarding shows like Arrested Development that aired on broadcast and streamed online- to the casual reader it’s just a TV series. “Times have changed” since 2015, but honestly the same types of television content are being produced with varying distribution methods. Don’t think there’s an actual problem here to solve. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 03:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
My 2 cents: There a few series that originate on a US streaming platform, but premiere on TV in another country. (Example: A few Hulu series, because Hulu is not available outside the US.) Content- and presentation-wise, the series are mostly identical, so there is IMO no need to disambiguate. – sgeureka t• c 09:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Network 10 (an article that is brilliantly high-quality compared to Seven Network and Nine Network; nice job, Wikipedia) has just released several shows on 10 Play, prior to being broadcast. Example. Are these "web television" shows now? Or does being intended for broadcast first absolve them of their webness? And what of The Mindy Project, which is apparently both a "web" and "non-web" television show? Oh, DrPizza! ( talk) 13:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Quibi launched today, so we can expect this topic will be tested somewhat in the near future. -- Netoholic @ 14:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested to add their opinion, there is a proposal for a mass rename of television categories from "program"/"programme" to "shows" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Television program(me)s. -- Gonnym ( talk) 14:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
There's an edit-war involving a couple of editors on the article page that appears to be over the use of the word "show". There is no place for edit-warring and I have warned one of the editors who has reverted twice. Both Gonnym and IJBall have reverted some of Netoholic's changes so I invite Netoholic to this discussion to gain consensus for his changes instead of edit-warring. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
If the character's name is the same as the show's title or if the character appears in many different titles, use Character name (character)
- this is just an explicit statement of a disambiguation already used in the
WP:NCFILM guideline and used extensively across the TV article space for when both a character shares the name of the TV show it belongs to. You removed an example - "Samurai Jack (character) – character name same as the TV series title ( Samurai Jack)" - so I invite you to show where this is not correct. -- Netoholic @ 18:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
lack of any coherent reasonwhich is both not WP:AGF and just plain WP:UNCIVIL (and incorrect). And since 2 other editors aside from us have so far commented here so far, one who reverted you as well and one who hasn't commented on the issue, if you want the changes to be added, you'll need to start an RfC to show you have consensus. That is what we all have previously did when we wanted to amend the guideline. -- Gonnym ( talk) 14:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to thank Gonnym's for undoing Netoholic's latest reversion which is both disruptive, and obnoxious, when there are clearly at least two editors that oppose Netoholic's latest changes in their entirety – this is clearly edit warring. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 14:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that this is a terrible disambiguation choice – anyone have any proposals for a better article disambiguation choice here?... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Are these OK the way they are as per WP:SMALLDETAILS, or should they be moved to Blood and Water (Canadian TV series) and Blood & Water (South Africa TV series)?... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Blood & Water (TV series)#Requested move 24 May 2020. As per the discussion above. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 14:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
There is confusion as to what this article, The Haunting of Hill House (season 2), should be named. This current naming does not make sense and should be renamed back to just The Haunting of Bly Manor. Although it is the second series of The Haunting series, Bly Manor revolves around a new and different story and characters and are not related to Hill House. Either way, here is my comment from the talk page:
Something to note with the title of this show is that Bly Manor is a completely different story consisting of different characters to Hill House (yes I'm aware that this an anthology series). Naming this 'Season 2' of 'The Haunting of Hill House' doesn't make much sense as it's not a continuation of Hill House at all. It's why its titled differently. One suggestion could be to rename both current articles The Haunting of Hill House (TV series) and The Haunting of Hill House (season 2) to The Haunting (season 1) and The Haunting (season 2) respectively, as specified by trailers ("The Haunting continues") and social media platforms for the series. However, this change would not be supported by many sources. Another option could be to revert it to how it was beforehand to its respective title of The Haunting of Bly Manor to avoid confusion. To sum it all up, Bly Manor isn't a continuation of Hill House, and the 'season 2' title isn't justified. Happy to discuss this further. Looking forward to hearing other opinions on this. Thanks. KaitoNkmra23 ( talk) 12:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You may be interested in the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Dead fictional characters. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Above is a short list of episode titles that are the same as their series - most, but not all, being pilot episodes. These are technically correct as of the present wording of WP:NCTV#Episode and character articles, but also they are repetitious in the same way discussed in #RfC on character titling in special cases. Would like to get some opinions on these, if we think any change is in order, such as simply dropping to "Title (episode)" where additional disambiguation isn't needed in the same way we handle character articles. -- Netoholic @ 13:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this big change on June 30 by Gonnym, I've reverted so that we can discuss some specifics. Because some sections were both reordered and involved a lot of changes, my revert kept the changed section order to make comparison easier in the diff.
Aesthetically in Gonnym's edit, the conversion of prose sections to bullet lists and removal of indents from the examples make the page look flat and somewhat unreadable. Some of the one-off examples (like Star Trek in the Media franchises section) were moved out of prose into the long example lists, which disconnects them from the text they relate to. There is also little value in adding headers to every examples section, since we don't link to them, and actually can't in his version since they all use the same anchor (#Examples). The lines added to almost every section that say "name does not conflict with any other article" are all repetitive and redundant with the lead 1st paragraph (fundamentally, after that line, everything in NCTV is already about ambiguous titles).
Contrary to his edit summary ("No actual guideline change or amendment"), there were some functional changes to the page (~5600 characters added). His "Additional disambiguation" section exhaustively-defined certain formats for series and especially seasons, which are something NCTV (intentionally) didn't rigidly define because there are a number of factors at play for any particular case. Text was added about "shared universe name", which is debatable whether that is really different from a franchise name, and is still somewhat a special case - a change to be discussed. -- Netoholic @ 15:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
there were some functional changes to the page (~5600 characters added)- are almost just the examples.
There is also little value in adding headers to every examples section, since we don't link to them, and actually can't in his version since they all use the same anchor (#Examples)- that was done to a) comply with MOS:HEAD and b) allow an easy way to edit the section, which adds the edit button. If you really want to link to the examples (and I personally see no reason why), you can either change the section name, add an anchor or add a shortcut. You'll notice that I limited the ToC intentionally to not show them. -- Gonnym ( talk) 15:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
His "Additional disambiguation" section exhaustively-defined certain formats for series and especially seasons, which are something NCTV (intentionally) didn't rigidly define because there are a number of factors at play for any particular casenothing I added was not something that isn't part of the guideline. What exactly isn't? Year prefix? Country prefix? Year Country prefix? Year season prefix? Country season prefix?
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Shall the above guideline be added to WP:NCTV#Episode and character articles? -- Netoholic @ 14:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Survey
Discussion |