Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Straw poll

Please vote for your preferred option, signing under one that's already there or adding your idea. One line per person please, and post replies in the talk section below.

Show Name (TV)

  • I like this one - the shorter the better The Steve 05:46, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Brevity = soul of something. –Hajor 19:23, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Show Name (television)

  • simple and consistent without the associated problem of deciding whether to call something - a show, serial, series, miniseries, mini-seiries, tv program, tv programme, animation series, tv cartoon, a tv movie, tv drama, soap opera, etc.. etc.. unless abosultely necessary. Mintguy (T) 15:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote for this one. It's informative, and not too long. RickK 19:07, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • I prefer "television" to "TV", and "series" is unnecessary. Proteus (Talk) 19:13, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I prefer this one. Not too long, and avoids the complications of series/serials/etc/etc -- Arwel 18:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Preferably, however, with other categories to separate valid genres inside television, such as (soap opera) for soap operas, etc. (switching my vote from television series) Mike H 19:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • skip unnecessary words. Mackerm 01:48, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Angela. 14:23, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Good and simple. Covers all sorts of television. --Rossumcapek 19:36, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Show Name (TV series)

  • EuropracBHIT 05:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)-if the show concerned is a series, that is. Easier to type.
  • I think TV (or television) needs to be part of the disambig for clarity. Prefer TV because its shorter. -- Netoholic 21:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • TV series are more common, though for one-off television programmes the convention should allow TV show.  – Lee J Haywood 22:09, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • --Rlandmann 23:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • "series" sits better with me than "show". For a one-time-only television feature or a television movie, perhaps simply "TV" will do. Foolip 17:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Show Name (television series)

Show Name (TV show)

  • EuropracBHIT 05:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)-A good general disambiguation which is what we want here.
  • Agree, if its not a series, its a show. -- Netoholic 21:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Show Name (television show)

Show Name (series)

  • NOT THIS ONE. I'm happy with the others but not saying 'television' or 'TV' will be confusing. DJ Clayworth 14:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguating TV series

We have a variety of ways of disambiguating television series: Bottom (television), V (television series), Hercules (TV series), Jeremiah (series). I'd like to standardise this a bit. My preference, after discussion on Talk:Enterprise (series) is to use "series" as the disambiguator. Any objections before I go ahead and move some pages? -- sannse 21:21 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'd prefer "TV series", since otherwise it could be interpreted as a book series, comic book series etc. --Eloquence 21:32 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
"TV series" seems the best. -- Wshun
I vote for "TV series" too. That's how IMDB does it as well ;-) -- Timwi 21:55 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Call me BBC, but I prefer "television series". Also, there are tens of series that have been both on the radio and on television (Dead Ringers, Goodness Gracious Me, Dad's Army...), how will "series" disambiguate these? CGS 22:08 22 Jun 2003 (UTC).
Well, this Yank prefers "television series" too. -- John Owens 22:42 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I agree; TV is, after all, ambiguous (though not in any sensible way in the context). However, I prefer "television series" over "TV series"; probably because I'm somewhat averse to too much slang... Oh, and, also, it involves less shift-typing, which is a Bad Thing for wrists. Umm. ;-) James F. 10:33 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I think "television" is unnecessarily long. "TV" is a pretty much universally recognised abbrev. -- Timwi 22:50 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
"TV" or "television" would be fine with me, but I think I'd prefer "television" for no really good reason. Even just plain (television) might make just as much sense (since television has more than just series - it has programs, commercials, etc., which could be disambiguated in the same way). -- Wapcaplet 01:13 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Something about this on one of the disamb or naming convention pages recently. needs to be cross-linked-- Tarquin 09:43 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That was on Talk:Enterprise (series), I'll link there to here too.
mav said on that page (arguing for ... (series)): "We only add enough disambiguation text to distinguish one thing from another. That is why we only add the year to parens of movies when there are more than one movie with the same name. Thus we have Titanic (1997 movie) since there were more than one but we have Platoon (movie) since there was only one movie by that title. And we don't have parenthetical disambiguation at all for unique movie titles, such as You Can't Take it With You."
Which makes a lot of sense to me. -- sannse 19:13 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
"Enterprise (series)" could theoretically refer to any series of things called "Enterprise", such as the series of ships named Enterprise. -Sean Curtin 05:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why add "TV" or "television" to the disambiguating text when there is only one thing by a particular name that could be a series? If there is a book, a movie and a series that all have the same name then (book), (movie) and (series) would be used as disambiguating text. There is no need for having extra information in (series) unless there were also two different types of series - such as a radio series. Then and only then does it make sense to have (television series) and (radio series). --mav 01:14 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In that case, I'd vote to use just plain (television) then (since "series" could itself be, at least as far as interpretation on behalf of the user goes, ambiguous; is the article about a TV, book, comic series, etc.) That way, the title itself tells us a bit more about what the article is about. -- Wapcaplet 02:04 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
That is not what disambiguation is for. You are trying to use disambiguating text to input meta data when disambiguations only goal is to distinguish one thing from another when they share the same name. The book, movie, series example above are disambiguated by type and a TV series is not a television. --mav

Does anyone have objections to "series" strong enough to ask me not to do the change? If so I'll drop it (I don't have very strong feelings about this, I'd just like to make things a little more consistant) -- sannse 19:26 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Series" is definitely ambiguous for most fiction: Could be books, TV, radio, etc. The Barchester Chronicles is all three. "Books", "TV" and "Radio" disambiguate better; don't need the word "series". Will there ever ba a need to distinguish between single and series TV programmes of the same name? I don't think so. Andy G 19:53 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree "Series" is too ambiguous, for brevity surely TV Series is far more suitable and also memorable for wikipedians on the go. JasonM 17:20 30 Jun 2003 (GMT)

OK, so what about a miniseries? V is both a miniseries and a TV series. So would it be "V (TV series)" and "V (miniseries)"? Eisnel 09:46, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Radio and comic books both use the term "miniseries". "Television series" (or whatever version of that you prefer) is only ambiguous if more than one television series of that title is ever produced. -Sean Curtin 05:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

moved from Village Pump

Current methods being used to disambig TV shows. Which is the best? Trying to get a straw poll to add a section to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, so feel free to add other ideas and vote -- Netoholic 05:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Straw poll moved to top)

There's already some discussion on this, almost all of it from last year, at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television) (which is a pretty well-hidden article, only linked to from Talk pages until now). I vote for article titles including TV only, with added qualification as necessary to distinguish different TV shows with the same name (eg by country, year...).-- Avaragado 18:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that semantically, a disambiguator should be a category containing the thing it's disambiguating. Thus Foo (Bar), should mean that Foo is a kind of Bar. Thus TV show would be ok, but TV would not. Paul August 20:48, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

That point was made some time back (example: "Dallas" is not a kind of television or a piece of television-related terminology, it's a television series), and I agree with it wholeheartedly. -Sean Curtin 05:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


current policy

I've noticed that programmes are being moved from ...(television) to ... (tv programme) or similar. This seems rather silly to me. Because of the different spelling of program/programme and other matters like the British use of series etc.. it seems to me to be much more sensible to use a disambiguation qualifer that is relatively straightforward and not open to the inconsistency that will undoubtedly arise with the current qualifer. I notice that there was a vote on this page some time ago. I was not aware of it and I would like to re-open the vote. Mintguy (T) 22:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually I now see that this vote is quite recent. But why is it at the top of the page? I'm not quite clear whether this vote is current or not. If this issue is still being discussed (which appears to be the case), users should note be moving pages to and fro as the will takes them, and the fact that what appeears on the project page is only a draft document awaiting confirmation should be made clear. Mintguy (T) 22:23, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see that the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions has been changed re. television names. Is this wording correct? Shouldn't there at least be a warning that the parentheticals are only used if disambiguation is necessary? Mackerm 15:14, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted that section of that page to state that this is still being discussed. A lot of people were suprised about the sudden move of well established pages to new titles. Mintguy (T) 15:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disapprovement of written convention

(moved from User:Netoholic) Hello - just curious as to why you moved Nineteen Eighty-Four (television) to Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme). It seems a little defunct to me, as they're both pretty similar titles. Is this a general style guide issue that I need to keep in mind for any future TV show articles I may create? Angmering 21:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why are you moving televtion series articles to different names? And why sometimes programme and sometimes series? And are you planning on cleaning up any double redirects which result? RickK 21:38, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, please refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). The key point is that the article is not a type of television, but rather it is a television program (or programme for our UK readers).
I am cleaning up all double redirects as I go. -- Netoholic 21:42, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Righty-ho! I am suitably corrected! :-) Angmering 21:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It appears to me from looking at the talk page that this is only a draft policy. If this is the case you shouldn't be moving pages. I am not quite clear whether the vote going on is current or not. Mintguy (T) 22:20, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Is there a consensus I missed regarding this? Why are you changing all of these? Mike H 03:23, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) -- Netoholic 03:40, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I would also like to know why you have moved Futurama (animated series) season 1. Is there something else named Futurama that is an animated series? You are only making the name more obscure, these sort of additions to titles should only be used to disambiguation. — マイケル ₪ 03:35, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Futurama refers to multiple articles. That means the tv show needs to be Futurama (TV series). Since further disambig is need for that (the seasons), I used Futurama (TV series - season 1). I find that quite clear. -- Netoholic 03:40, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can't believe you have the audacity to quote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) back to people when they question you moving pages when you are the sole contributor to that page. You can't just create a policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) all on your own and then go changing pages to conform with it willy nilly. Please see the talk page and please do not make any further moves until a consensus policy is decided. In the mean time I think you should return the pages you moved back to where they were. Mintguy (T) 08:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, these articles have all been happily residing where they were for a long time. If you don't like the current concensus regarding naming conventions, please bring it up to the community on the Wikipedia:Village pump. You can't expect everyone to be happy with your change if you don't first discuss it with others. — マイケル ₪ 12:43, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
It is not audacity. The issue was discussed and voted on in Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television). Consensus (particularly regarding the naming of episodic shows) was reached, so I wrote the convention based on that discussion, and then implemented it. You may not agree with that majority, but a consistent method is by far better than random naming that has been done before. I can't believe that the inconsistent naming of television shows has lasted as long as it did, and trust me, or look at my contributions page, but there has never before been consensus about any particular naming scheme. I didn't asked for anyone's help in moving the pages, and I've spent a lot of time and care ensuring that double-redirects and disambiguation pages were updated as needed. It may be painful for a few articles, but now everyone knows what the standard is. -- Netoholic 13:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Are you talking about that vote on the project page or talk page or wherever? Since when does three votes make a consensus? Mike H 14:27, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
My bad, it was five votes, but still, that is hardly enough of anything. I didn't even know this was going on; if I had, I would have voted against it. Mike H 14:29, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
Me too. 5:2 is hardly a major victory for one form over another. There is also no indication on that page of when the poll was meant to finish. If it has finished, I would like to re-open it. Please read the talk page and comment. Mintguy (T)
Consensus was reached both in the vote, and in the previous discussion on the talk page. The vote was open for nearly 3 weeks. Feel free to vote (you already have) or propose something better, but read the previous discussions first. -- Netoholic 16:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If a lot of users who were very interested in the subject didn't know about it in the slightest, I do think something is wrong here. Mike H 16:24, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
11 days' worth of votes doesn't quite say "three weeks" and the low turnout in the votes really doesn't say "in-depth discussion". Unless a lot of people put in votes to get a clear consensus, I'd consider the result achieved here (whatever it may be) to be a guisdeline rather than a policy. After all, nobody's engaging in edit wars over "movie" versus "film". -Sean Curtin 22:07, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
There are at least 4 users who have complained to you about moving pages without them knowing about any change in policy. This cancels out a majority of 3 on the vote. Mintguy (T) 17:18, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Do you really feel that's a fair assessment? I changed around probably 200 pages to the new naming convention, and only 4 people complained. How many users are out there, saw the changes and though "Hmm.. that's a good idea"? The convention is sound (but may not agree with every single person) and was reached via concensus. Have you really read all the comments on this page posted before? If you had, you'd see your idea is in the minority. -- Netoholic 20:39, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's 4 users who showed concern immediately upon them noticing that pages has been moved. People are still voting on this issue. There are now 3 votes for ...(television) as a disambguator. Can you not see that this issue is not yet closed? Mintguy (T)
I agree. I think all moving of articles should be suspended until talk and voting is finished, which it is quite evident that it is not. Mike H 22:19, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
First off, the issue was closed, and you're trying to re-open it. Second, I've already gone through, pretty thoroughly, and moved the articles to the new standard [[ShowName (TV series)]]. Any new direction needs to have overwhelming support to justify all the re-work that needs to be done. Is this really an issue none of you can live with? -- Netoholic 23:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So now you're claiming you're right and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong because its a fait accompli are you? Mintguy (T) 00:05, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The issue was not closed (the vote was not given an ending date until you decided that it was now policy, after less than two week of voting). Unilateral actions (like declaring an open poll closed and its results the new convention) are not very helpful to the community as a whole. As someone who was moving all appropriate TV articles he came across to "seriesname (television series)" I do agree that an arbitrary change in the naming convention wastes accoplished work and contributors' time. -Sean Curtin 07:15, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
A simple straw poll (which is a valid means of getting consensus) was posted after a good bit of discussion had already taken place. A few people voted and discussed some more. A basic convention that satisfied as many of the participants was written. I am sorry it doesn't agree with everyone, but it was written in a way the met most everyone's desires. Almost everyone wanted "(something series)" and "TV" won over "television" because it was shorter. The proper procedure at this point (if you all feel this strongly) is to create a complete survey with basically two options - Votes in favor or opposed to blanking out the current written convention and starting over by designing (and probably voting again) on the individual elements. -- Netoholic 07:31, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Since no convention was agreed (It was unilaterally set), and I think everyone bar Netoholic believes that. There is no question that what now stands on the project page has no value and should be described as a draft proposal. I suggest we re-start this "straw poll", using the more formal polling procedures that are commonly used in other issues. Talk:analogue disc record is a good example. We should publicise it properly this time. A 5:2 majority is not worthy of the name in a community of several thousand. Everyone who previously voted should be contacted. If they fail to reply we should assume that their previous vote stands. Sean would you mind doing the honours? At this stage I think I would rather avoid any more direct confrontation on this issue. Mintguy (T)

I agree. This vote was not publicized -- I didn't even know that it was happening until Netoholic started moving things without discussion. These moves should be rescinded and the vote start over from scratch, well publicized. RickK 19:06, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

All right, I'll start a new poll. I figure that leaving the poll open for 3-4 weeks should be enough time to reach a consensus or at least a general agreement. I'll put a note about the discussion on Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Current surveys and Wikipedia:Village pump and let everyone who voted or discussed the naming before know about the poll on their talk pages - should it be mentioned anywhere else? -Sean Curtin 01:30, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Draft of a new poll is up at User:Gtrmp/TV draft poll. Feedback requested. Once everybody's happy with the poll, it will be moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)/poll, publicized, and officially started. -Sean Curtin 09:40, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Episode names

How should pages for individual episodes be named? This seems like something else that could be standardised. Some observed naming conventions:

In the case of Buffy and Alias the format is

<episode name> (<series name> episode)

In the case of The X-Files the format used is

<episode name> (<series name>)

In the case of The Simpsons and the various Star Trek's the format is

<episode name>

which leads to clashes with regular articles.

Someone has suggested on The Simpsons' talk page the format

<series name>/<episode name>

--Cfailde 15:27, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

  • I'd prefer not to see any articles about specific episodes. These are not very encyclopeadic and always end up being worse than TV Guide descriptions. Leave long episode articles to external fan pages or other Wikis. I do not mind seeing episode summaries in the main article, or separated into season pages, like Futurama (TV series - season 1). -- Netoholic 16:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't understand this attitude at all. Leave long episode articles to external fan pages or other Wikis. What is the rationale of this argument. Are we running out of space or something? Mintguy (T) 17:20, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)/Archive_1&oldid=1137426238"