Television Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

Hmmm... Now who has been saying we should?!... Oh, yeah: me!! – Yes, as I've pointed out on multiple occasions, NCTV is one of the few (the only?) WP that uses "UK"/"U.S." rather than "British" and "American". Pretty much all other WP's, most notably NCFILM and the biography articles, use "British" and "American" for disambiguation purposes. I firmly believe that NCTV should drop the use of UK/U.S. and go to British/American, which would put us in line with all the other WP, and has the added benefit of eliminating the pestiferous U.S./US issue. Unfortunately, doing that will require an WP:RfC that is likely to be contentious and inconclusive... But I, for one, would support the change. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As would I. I would happily start an RFC if it's recommended. NCTV already supports usages such as "Canadian" or "Australian"; "American" and "British" should go hand in hand with such examples. I didn't think to check other naming conventions; biography definitely does (e.g. Patrick Wilson (American actor)). -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes – a recent WP:RM even went with "Emirati" over "UAE" (it was Studio One (Emirati TV program)), which is the only place where the abbreviation would have made sense in both WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:CONCISE terms. IOW, if we're going to use "Emirati" over "UAE", then we should absolutely use "British" and "American" over "UK" and "U.S." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only advantage for the TV's style is that it is shorter, but the recurring discussions about US vs U.S. and the inconsistent style with the whole en.wiki is not worth that. --Gonnym (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to "American" would remove any discussion about the use of US/U.S. in article titles... -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't understand me, I'm supporting your proposal. I meant that the current situation has the advantage of being shorter, but it has the disadvantages of raising the US debate and being inconsistent with other aspects of the pedia. --Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I can give some background and a few thoughts:

• We can't discuss this only in relation to the U.S. and leave out UK, so I've expanded the header to include both.
• The reason the current convention developed to use (U.S. TV series) and (UK TV series) comes directly from what was used predominantly before the convention. Before that, most editors just used (US) and (UK) (such as The Office (US) and The Office (UK). Country distinctions were and are far more common in relation to TV shows than, say, films (per WP:NCFILM) which use country disambiguation only very rarely when two movies are from the same year. So I don't think its fair to draw an equivalence between NCFILM and NCTV and, in fact, petitioning at WP:NCFILM to switch to UK/U.S. would be far less impactful.
• "American" as a word has a specific connotation of relating to the people of the United States (a demonym). So its not unusual we use something like Patrick Wilson (American actor) for biographies. The adjectival used for NCTV should be the one that best describes where the TV show originates or was produced, so it is not appropriate to use "American" in describing TV shows because we use the adjectival for the country, not the people. The spelled-out "United States" has a slightly stronger connotation for relating to the government of the USA. This ultimately seems to have led to use of "U.S." as the best adjectival to denote that a TV show (or film) originates from within that country, rather than originating from American (people) or the United States (government).
• "American" as a word is also a bit ambiguous as it can imply a relation to any of the Americas (north, central, south). I don't think this is a major factor, just something to add that has come up in these discussions in the past.
• "British" as a word likewise has certain connotation issues. "British" can be used as a demonym relating to the people of either the island of Great Britain or the citizens of the United Kingdom. You'll often see it used for people as in (British scientist), just as you might see more specific terms like (English scientist), (Scottish politician), or (Welsh author). Certainly, TV shows in the UK are produced within and portray strong ties to the countries of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England. But of course we avoid using disambiguation (Scottish TV series) or (Welsh TV series), because those demonyms would get easily confused with the words for the regional languages. A formation like (United Kingdom TV series) reads a bit formal and may have the same implied connotation of relating to the government as the U.S. situation above. All of this is probably why editors early on settled on use of (UK) to disambiguate TV series originating from within the United Kingdom, and why we continue today.

Now, some of these connotation issues may not be obvious to people from outside of these countries. The adjectival to use falls within MOS:ENGVAR/MOS:TIES and like other usages, people from outside those regional variations shouldn't probably be leading a push to change things. That's not to undermine outside viewpoints - just consider that if something reads slightly wrong to you, it might be just fine or preferable for people in those regions. Anytime we have needed to determine how something is used in a certain region, we've very often consulted or deferred to editors from those regions, like in the RfC about Australian use of program vs programme. -- Netoholic @ 19:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the original header, as it serves as an anchor for the link I posted to another NC talk page.

I can see how it originated from the second point; but now it needs to continue adapting to match the rest of Wikipedia. "American" can mean "related to the people", but that is not its sole definition. "American" means "relating to or characteristic of the United States or its inhabitants", such as the example film I linked, or "American culture" or "American traditions". "American" is also listed as adjectival or demonymic form for the United States of America, as well as "U.S."; the use of "American" to mean any of the Americas is also covered there. Same applies for Britain (e.g. High Treason (1929 British film)).

Yes, I agree that the view of the people from those countries is beneficial, but they should not be the only view heard, even as a "majority". This may be a contentious issue, but its one I believe sorely needs updating to conform with the rest of the site. I can see that an RFC would be the best idea to gain a wider range of views, so I'll think on starting one soon. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues with this change, as I discovered in the RfC on US/U.S. from months ago: (1) WP:NCA opposes using "United States" and "United Kingdom": 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)[reply]

The first shouldn't be an issue, given the use of "American" and "British" instead of "United States" and "United Kingdom". But I do agree that the second would need clarification; however, the adjectival or demonymic forms article I posted above lists "British" for a number of countries, including Scotland, Northern Ireland, etc. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this what I mean. Examples like "American culture" or "American traditions" originate from the people themselves and so that usage is fine. But we often avoid using "American" to mean simply things that originate from within the confines of the United States (Cinema of the United States not American cinema or Television in the United States not American television, for example). Preserving this distinction is important to understanding topics - if I told you that "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)[reply]

Actually, I would assume the latter. That doesn't change the definition of American that I listed above. American as a noun, sure. American as an abjective, ":of or relating to America", "of or relating to the U.S. or its possessions or original territory", e.g. American embassies, American states, from Merriam Webster. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well your interpretation may be affected by the particular national variety of English you're most familiar with. And please don't even bother with linking to a cherry-picked dictionary definition here as some sort of trump card to the discussion. It lacks nuance. -- Netoholic @ 22:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can link to dozens of other dictionary definitions, if you like. Just because it doesn't conform with you interpretation of the word, and the particular national variety of English you're most familiar with, doesn't make it less valid or incorrect. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, it's already used to disambiguate with that meaning at dozens of articles, so if it was a real problem, editors have had almost two decades to object to and overturn its use. In the meantime, the use of "American" and "British" for disambiguation by other WPs means they offer no real challenge for their use under NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how your argument is any different than "French restaurant" or "Spanish restaurant" yet we use Top Model (French TV series) and Cheers (Spanish TV series). --Gonnym (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If French or Spanish speakers want to discuss that we are presenting the context incorrectly by using those terms, they are free to. But those countries only have a single adjectival which is used to both describe the people, the language, and anything that originates from within the confines of those countries. With only one to choose from, its not incorrect in any context. Again, could be wrong if any French or Spanish wikipedians want to interject. -- Netoholic @ 22:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Preserving this distinction is important to understanding topics - if I told you that "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)[reply]

But as an American, I do say "American food" and mean it to mean cheeseburgers and hotdogs and mac and cheese and buffalo wings.... --Izno (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of what I'm getting at, is that a sentence like "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 food might 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)[reply]

I don't see how "P.F. Chang's is an American restaurant chain that serves Asian food" could possibly be misinterpreted the ways you suggest. And the sentence you quoted from the article still reads "wrong" to me. I would expect "P.F. Chang's China Bistro is an Asian-themed American casual dining restaurant chain." --Khajidha (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the RfC has been closed in favor of switching to "American" and "British" in NCTV disambiguation, we need to:

1. Rewrite NCTVUK/NCTVUS. (And at the same time, I would also favor changing the general guideline to indicating a "preference" for by country disambiguation whenever possible, as multiple RM's have shown that it is preferred...) And,
2. Put in for approval of a bot to do a "mass move" of all of the articles under NCTVUK/NCTVUS to "British" and "American" disambiguation (leaving redirects at all of the old "UK" and "U.S." titles).

There may be other things that need to be done?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles (TV pages, season pages, list pages), templates and categories. --Gonnym (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A mass move can be executed per WP:MOVESUBPAGE, and as an approved page mover, I'm happy to help with this. I can look into putting together a list of all the television-related articles, template and categories that use "U.S." or "UK" disambiguation. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After following this search and filtering through the results with my own regex search-and-replace, I came up with this list of 847 articles, templates and categories. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you can do the moves without a bot, feel free! (I'd cite this RfC in the edit summary, when doing them.) It just seems like a lot of work, the kind of thing that's better suited for a bot to do... (FTR, I didn't know/remember page movers can do "mass moves" like this, and I've never looked at that code in question.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, the mass move script won't work, as it only remove or appends text to the pages to be moved. A bot request would be best, if someone would like to file one. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better if somebody more familiar with bots and the request process does it – I'm almost never dealing with BAG and such... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, I've requested several bot tasks from you, and you were a great help with my requests. Would mass page moves (about 800, replacing "U.S." with "American", and "UK" with "British") be something that could be performed by PrimeBOT? -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bot's an AWB bot, which can't do automated moves. I would put in a request at WP:BOTREQ. Primefac (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A mass move of US-disambiguated seems reasonable, but not of UK without some pre-processing, because the UK != GB, and my understanding is that "British" only refers to those from Britain or even just Great Britain.[4] I don't think it would be hard to pre-process them to verify. --Izno (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"British" is an acceptable term for a wide range of countries, per List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless, but this is an opportunity to be precise instead. "Irish" is just as easy to move a target to. --Izno (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Alex – if people want to argue that "British" is a problem, they need to do it site-wide, because "British" has been use for disambiguation purposes forever around here, and there's never been a problem with it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose Alex 21 doing any of these mass moves directly. His mass operations related to country terms has been a concern in the recent past. -- Netoholic @ 15:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we've already established that it should go through WP:BOTREQ. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful about doing mass moves as it's likely to cause issues, most notably with navboxes. A lot of work is still going to have to be done manually. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the guideline states:

Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which has its own page, disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element).

As we see on Talk:Winterfell (Game of Thrones), this is clearly problematic. Basically, in the Game of Thrones universe, Winterfell is both a castle and the name of an episode. The castle is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to World of A Song of Ice and Fire#Winterfell, while the episode is clearly less important but happens to be the only entity called "Winterfell" which has an article on Wikipedia, so the rules technically stipulate "Winterfell (Game of Thrones)" rather than "Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode)", which is nonsense because the first one fails to accomplish any meaningful disambiguation. I understand the general principle behind the "own page" restriction, e.g. an eponymous episode containing a one-off character mentioned only in that episode would not need further disambiguation. Therefore, in keeping with WP:PRECISE and WP:INCDAB, I propose the following:

Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show, disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element). Such additional disambiguation is not necessary if the element in question is the primary topic for the title within the context of the show, and no other element from the show by that title has its own page.

Thoughts? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The "has its own page" red line is valuable to keep most titles WP:CONCISE because a great many TV series only briefly mention characters/settings within their main pages or in "List of X characters/settings" pages. Whereas a lot of shows are popular enough to have individually-notable episodes, its much rarer that the same applies to characters, settings, or other elements. Hatnotes are sufficient on disambiguated episode articles like Winterfell (Game of Thrones) to avoid any particular confusion. I'd oppose that change, because without the red line, we would have to move a lot of articles to less-CONCISE titles, and overall less WP:CONSISTENT with other episodes of the same series. -- Netoholic @ 06:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Netoholic: Can you think of any actual examples where the second sentence of my proposal fails to prevent any unnecessary disambiguation? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @King of Hearts: I get what you're saying in that second sentence, I just don't think its easily explainable to others, and its rare a particular element only is present in that single article. For example, a character which an episode is named for is likely important enough to appear in at least a couple other episodes. It seems like that sentence would affect only certain "monster of the week", "crime of the week", or "planet of the week" series. Its a pretty niche case. -- Netoholic @ 22:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is why I've put the emphasis on primary topic. If an episode is not more important than the character despite being the only such entity with its own page, then we do need the additional disambiguation to be clear that we're not talking about the character. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  In particular, I'd avoid the phrase "primary topic" because the way you mean it is not the same as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. I'd prefer the wording of the lines to remain straight-forward the way "has its own page" means. -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  How about this then: "Such additional disambiguation is not necessary if the title primarily refers to the element in question within the context of the show, and no other element from the show by that title has its own page." I see you've opposed the move on Talk:Winterfell (Game of Thrones), but you're clearly in the minority. I agree that we should strive for simplicity when possible, but it should never come at the cost of a suboptimal result (to the majority of participants in the debate). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The "you're clearly in the minority" comment is not called for. Holding an RM at the peak of popularity of a page (and surely the week the episode airs will always be the peak of popularity) often results in votes from fans/casual editors that are not generally aware of TITLES policy, naming convention specifics, or precedent. It is the worst time to hold an RM and I don't see it as valid proof of general change in attitude. We've handled episode articles in the way the naming convention describes for years. -- Netoholic @ 01:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you then justify why Winterfell (Game of Thrones) is a reasonable title for the episode, from first principles rather than citing WP:NCTV (since this is precisely what we're trying to change here, making it a circular argument)? And just because the participants are new doesn't mean that they're opinions are less valid; in fact, it's good to have fresh opinions because ultimately the point of naming conventions and disambiguation is to better serve our readers, not comply with rules which (in the opinion of many) defy common sense. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I do like going to first principles, and I'd be willing to if this naming convention hadn't been this way since 2006, and been re-affirmed in multiple discussions, not overriden by subsequent RFCs, and quietly, consistently used by editors across several TV series during that time. I am not willing to casually toss 13 years of that history on the basis of a single RM held at the worst possible time an RM can be held. I think the last RFC about this was this one in 2013. I am not saying consensus can't or hasn't changed, but I am sure a change to the guideline can't be done without an RFC. I see 3 paths: status quo (require an article to exist), change to "covered by Wikipedia" (which lets list entries and brief mentions necessitate extended disambiguation), or full disambiguation using (SeriesName episode), etc. in all cases. I think we all agree that Title (episode) has undesirable qualities, even though it is just like Title (song) and other types of media. And your proposal is a bit too complex (at least in a way to quickly communicate it to casual editors) and very situational. -- Netoholic @ 03:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me return to my beliefs on a first-principle basis. Basically, I agree with the actions taken in the famous case of Thriller (album), which has been established as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) after an RM and an RfD. That is to say, I consider partial disambiguation unacceptable for an article title unless all other senses have no standalone articles and are nowhere near as important as the one in question (Thriller fails the first condition, and Winterfell fails the second), but acceptable as a primary redirect if it fails only the first condition. My rationale: we need titles to be clear and unconfusing even if they introduce disambiguators which are technically unnecessary (that is why 2012 Aurora shooting was rejected as a title even though there was no other shooting in Aurora in 2012), but PDABs are nonetheless allowed to have primary topics to recognize what people overwhelmingly want when searching for that term. Let me know what parts of this framework you disagree with, if any, and we can go on from there (i.e. let's first establish the substance, then we can figure out the semantics). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the main values (maybe the main value) of a naming convention is to prevent the need for RM discussions. The first part of your rationale, all other senses have no standalone articles, is very clear-cut which I think is why its lasted so long in this naming convention. Its a very binary yes/no criteria, easily explainable to others, easily verified, and that prevents a lot of RM discussions. The second part is and are nowhere near as important as the one in question is completely subjective and in almost every case requires a discussion. There is no specific threshold, and so the whims of the participants determine the outcome. It essentially negates the first part of your rationale, as it leads to RMs in most cases. Its why RMs held during peaks of popularity go the direction the Winterfell discussion is going - against the NCTV guideline as its written today - and ultimately defeats the main purpose of a naming convention, which is to provide WP:CONSISTENT (a first principle) titles with minimal need for discussion. A subjective guideline is no guideline at all. -- Netoholic @ 08:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There is always going to be a tradeoff between consistency and objectivity on one hand, and achieving the local optimum on the other hand. This is a tradeoff which must be weighted both when applying the principles of general guidelines to construct specific guidelines, and when applying specific guidelines (and occasional WP:IAR) to decide each specific article. For a long time numerals always meant years to ensure consistency, even when something like 1 would blatantly violate WP:PTOPIC. Initially it was justified as part of MediaWiki's user preference handling (to automatically display dates in the user's preferred format, which only worked if the dates were linked), but after systematic linking was abolished in 2008 the status quo hung around for many more years, inconveniencing countless readers along the way. Finally, after much discussion we decided to make 1-10 numbers and 11-100 DABs as a compromise. Ugly? Yes. Subjective and arbitrary? Of course. But sometimes you just have to deal with it if it achieves a higher purpose. Note that there are limits to how far we're willing to go; nothing of note happened in years 911 or 1024 so the primary topic is pretty clearly not the year, but here I would defend consistency and go with the year anyways because having a random gap in the middle of all these years would be astonishing.

  Indeed, WP:ASTONISH is one of my main motivating factors in any discussion about naming conventions. That is why I think it would astonish anyone that the primary topic of Winterfell is a location in GoT but the primary topic of Winterfell (Game of Thrones) is something else in the GoT universe. My proposed wording can perhaps be improved (I admit it is a bit WP:CREEPy, though I struggle to find a wording which is more plain-English but still clearly captures my desired outcome), but the current state which allows for disambiguation on the basis of a term which fails to distinguish it from the primary topic is a violation of general disambiguation principles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good example, and it probably won't even be rare (TV series episodes are named after in-universe things in those series all the time, after all). Just adding "episode" in the parenthetic disambiguation is sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how those examples relate - how to handle years vs numerals is something that can be centrally-discussed. But deciding if a certain character meets a certain unspecified level of "importance" enough to justify extended disambiguation for an episode is a discussion that has to happen in every individual situation. Not very ideal. -- Netoholic @ 00:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There was already a pretty solid consensus when I raised this issue last time Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 15#Proposal: Episode titles - allow for extended disambiguation in cases where another element is an entry in a list article with myself, User:IJBall, User:SMcCandlish and User:Woodensuperman in favor of it, Netoholic asking for test RMs (and User:Alex 21 just asking a question). As for the tests, here is one example: Talk:Killer Frost (The Flash episode)#Requested move 3 December 2018. --Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the specific case of Winterfell (Game of Thrones) moving it to Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode) probably makes a lot of sense. If nothing else, an WP:RM on that question is probably in order... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue seems to lie in the phrase ...which has its own page..., because that appears to contradict WP:DAB which says:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia

It goes on to explain that "covered by Wikipedia" includes article subsections. Perhaps then a simpler fix for this issue would be to change the guideline to say:

Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which is covered by Wikipedia, disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element)

This change would allow Winterfell (Game of Thrones) to be moved to Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode). Maybe there's other articles that this doesn't work for that I haven't considered though. AdA&D ★ 15:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I like your suggested change of phrasing (or something like that...) – it moves past just "another article" to including "redirects" in assessing whether additional disambiguation is necessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• In my opinion, the second sentence of my proposed wording expresses the idea in a more explicit way. Otherwise, people are left wondering what "covered by Wikipedia" means. In the example I gave originally, a one-off character who shows up in one episode is technically "covered by Wikipedia," but that doesn't mean we should further disambiguate the episode if the character is not notable outside of the episode. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The "covered on Wikipedia" issue does follow the wording on WP:Disambiguation, but we've seen precedent that naming conventions can limit that and instead require that those other topics have dedicated articles about them. The best example is WP:SONGDAB, which is repeatedly used to enforce SongTitle (song) over SongTitle (Artist song), even when other songs by other artists are covered as mentions in other articles (such as track listings). I really wouldn't use the Winterfell RM as evidence one way or the other for the necessity for a change. An RM held during the peak of popularity of a topic tends to attract more fans who vote based on their gut feeling of the importance as relate to their show rather than RM regulars who are familiar with WP:TITLES policy, naming conventions, and precedent. Frankly, if we're going to expand the disambiguation here to included "covered by Wikipedia", we might as well go only slightly further and use the much simpler and CONSISTENT approach of saying that all such episode/character/element articles should be disambiguated using EpisodeTitle (ShowTitle episode) etc. -- Netoholic @ 22:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm in favor of changing the sentence so that extended disambiguation will be valid whether we are dealing with 2 articles or an article and a redirect to a section or list entry (I also don't believe in a primary dab, which almost always is the consensus over at WP:RM). Any rephrasing which supports that has my support. I also support Netoholic's proposal of just always using (x episode) as it makes identifying the article much easier and faster and basically solves almost all relevant RMs (and as a side note, it is much more correct. A "Winterfell" is not a "Game of Thrones" but it is a "Game of Thrones episode"). --Gonnym (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FTR, I'm not in favor of addition disambiguation if there's only a list element on a DAB page somewhere (and would oppose changing any naming guideline to cover that) – that has always struck me as a case of "preemptive disambiguation". We should only disamiguate for the existence of other articles, and redirects. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that a list entry on a dab page is not a valid option. Meant more along the lines of episode or character lists. --Gonnym (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I saw after I posted that you meant redirects to list items, not "list items" themselves... Still, it's worth reiterating that disambig. isn't needed for simple list items at DAB pages, as a question about that recently came up at either WT:TV or WT:FILM (can't remember which...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like people could WP:GAME the "and redirects" clause. I think we've see that there are editors out there that are so adamant about using (... episode) in the case of all episodes, that they are perfectly willing to create extraneous redirects. The worst example would be arguing that we have to keep an (... episode) disambiguation because someone created a (... character) redirect to that episode for a minor character appearing only in that very episode. It seems to me the example (Winterfell) is fought over so strongly due to it being a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, so maybe that should be the guideline rather than just any redirect. -- Netoholic @ 00:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure if gaming in this context is bad. If an article exists with a list of entries and someone creates a redirect to the specific entry they are actually following the guideline at MOS:REDIR, which recommends linking with a redirect. --Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redirecting to an entry on a List is one thing... but that about my example (a character redirect which points to the episode article they appeared in), or perhaps someone creating redirects for every minor character to the main page of a series (no List page). -- Netoholic @ 13:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah ok, then I agree with your point. If the redirect is just a redirect to a general article than that shouldn't count. So to rephrase my comment based on IJBall's and your comments - a redirect to a section or list entry that mentions the element or a redirect to an alternative name (See Inmate 4587 and Inmate 4587 (Arrow episode) and other similar situations), but not a redirect to a general series article or dab page. --Gonnym (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, we have to consider primary topic. By the way, it is not unusual for a subject to be the primary topic despite not having an independent article, cf. Libel (treated as a subtopic of Defamation and a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to such) and Libel (disambiguation). Let's consider the possible scenarios, assuming that ShowName has one or more elements called ElementName:

1. If ElementName is unambiguous outside the show (i.e. all ShowName elements called ElementName taken together represent all or the vast majority of uses of the term in the world) and one of the elements is primary within the show, then the base title ElementName should contain either an article on the element or a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to wherever it is mentioned if it doesn't. All other elements with that name should be at ElementName (ShowName elemtype).
2. If ElementName is unambiguous outside the show and there is no primary topic within the show, then the base title ElementName should be a disambiguation page pointing to all the elements' pages, which should each be at ElementName (ShowName elemtype). Alternatively, if only one element called ElementName has an article, it should usually occupy the base title ElementName, but this may be overridden by consensus given best judgment and common sense.
3. If ElementName is ambiguous outside the show, and multiple ShowName elements called ElementName have articles, use ElementName (ShowName elemtype) for all of them regardless of any determination of show-specific primary topic, per WP:PDAB.
4. If ElementName is ambiguous outside the show, and only one of the ShowName elements has an article, follow the same procedure as the first two points (based on whether the show-specific primary topic is the element with an article, an element without an article, or there is no primary topic).

I think the problem with the existing guideline is that it sort of assumes that an element with a unique article has to be primary, which is not the case. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The existing guideline doesn't really care if an Element is primary or not - just that it is independently notable (which is why it would have its own independent article). In other words, if there is only one independently notable Element of a particular name from a Show, then all you need to disambiguate with is the ShowName - if disambiguation is even necessary (based on whether the Element's name is the same as some other topic). If anything, the existing guideline kinda assumes that the Element is not primary, because if its primary, there'd be no need for a naming convention to tell you how to disambiguate it. -- Netoholic @ 02:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would say that the standard ElementName (ShowName) disambiguation is mainly for cases where the element is not the global primary topic, and whoever wrote it didn't really think too much about local primacy and how could be different from notability. The purpose of the naming convention is to ensure that the show name is used rather than something else. Bolin (The Legend of Korra) would be perfectly unambiguous as Bolin (character), and no other disambiguation guideline prohibits the latter to my knowledge. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any disambiguation is mainly for cases where its not the global primary. Independent notability is the standard for what decides a topic has its own article or not. WP:NCFILM#Character articles and WP:NCVG#Disambiguation handle it similarly to NCTV, defaulting to using the title of the work or franchise as disamiguator. Other media NCs are less developed on this. -- Netoholic @ 03:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overthinking it a bit; there's bound to be redundancy in any subject-level guideline for the sake of clarity, like how SNGs like WP:BIO will start off by parroting WP:GNG before delving into the specifics. Anyways, the original intent of NCTV is not important. What's important is that it currently prescribes a solution which many people, including me, consider nonsensical. "That's the way it's always been" is not a valid defense for bad policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about we keep the general rule as it is, but explicitly allow local consensus to override it when appropriate (so we don't have to invoke WP:IAR every time we encounter something like Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode)):

Where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show, the title may be disambiguated further using Title (Show episode/character/element). Such additional disambiguation is usually not necessary if only one element from the show has a standalone article, but editors should regardless use their best judgment to select a title of appropriate precision.

It avoids spelling out exactly what to do in every imaginable scenario, instead trusting editors to make an appropriate determination using common sense and basic disambiguation principles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll oppose that. The only one in this and the previous discussion that opposes redirects is Netoholic. Looking at recent RMs which were for similar situations, such as Dragonstone RM, Killer Frost RM, Rose RM and Winterfell RM (which is currently is going to go that direction as well), it's obvious that the community thinks the same. Consensus does not mean a unanimity and trying to avoid fixing a guideline is always wrong, even more so, when you invoke as a reason an essay which has no community consensus at all. --Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Are reality talent shows such as The Voice, Your Face Sounds Familiar, and Got Talent considered as TV series for naming? -Hiwilms (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shows like The Voice have "continuing story elements" (e.g. for example, continuing contestants from week to week), so yes they are generally considered to be "TV series" for the purposes of NCTV. However, I'd argue that's not true of purely "episodic" reality TV shows like Kitchen Nightmares, though others disagree... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking this because of the recent move warring in multiple Philippine TV reality and talent shows. I have reverted some already back to "TV series" since this is the naming convention used. --Hiwilms (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"TV show" is absolutely wrong under WP:NCTV no matter what, so those moves should absolutely be reverted – it's either "TV series" or "TV program". "TV show" is to never be used... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, here is a by-no-means "all inclusive" list of recent RM's that consistently show a consensus in favor of preferring "by country" disambiguation whenever possible:

• Happy Family (U.S. TV series)
• Eve (U.S. TV series)
• Shattered (UK TV series)
• Street Legal (Canadian TV series)
• Bodyguard (UK TV series)
• Committed (Canadian TV series)
• Beyond (U.S. TV series)
• The Three Musketeers (U.S. TV series) (note: "mixed" set)
• Love Thy Neighbor (U.S. TV series) (note: "mixed" set)

Again, this list is by no means complete, and I'll bet I could find others if I have some time...

Note that the consistent opposer in some of these RM's was Netoholic, but "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity" and one user shouldn't be able to "veto" a valid update to our naming guideline to reflect current consensus on the question. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation, since the origin of this naming convention guideline, neither "by country" or "by year" styles has ever been "preferred" over the other. Both are used in different circumstances, and the choice on which should be used is up to what is best for the set of articles being disambiguated. If there are advocates for one or the other being promoted to a primary method over the other, they need to demonstrate consensus for this change. In the meantime, the guideline should revert back to the long-term status quo and advocates for this change need to stop edit-warring this change when it is clearly disputed. -- Netoholic @ 14:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No – there is consensus for the change. It's been confirmed over and over. And notice the new wording: "Generally the preferred disambiguation..." – i.e. "generally" = "not all the time". There is nothing false about this new wording – it is generally preferred, though there will be situations where "by county" will not be preferred (as shown in RM's). But the "default" is clearly a preference for "by country" disambig, as per WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Despite you implying it, it's not just me supporting this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, you claim that its just about calling it "generally preferred" and then you slip and call it a "default". Your list of RM discussions is not conclusive, as the individual circumstances for each set of moves is exactly why neither method is preferred. "Three Musketeers" in particular was inconclusive on some articles which remain using year. It could simply be that you submitted RMs for pairs of articles which just simply had a stronger case for "by country" than "by year" and your preference for a "default" has not been truly tested. You also could be leaving out discussions that went against your country "default" hypothesis. Moreover, as television productions become more international in nature, "by country" distinctions become harder to use to recognizably disambiguate (see this 2012 discussion). Every pair of articles needs to use the best disambiguation for its circumstances - and that means we cannot state a "default" or "generally preferred" method, but rather continue to advice to choose the one that promotes the most clear distinction. Even Netflix has to use both methods as necessary - [5][6], while other TV show sources like IMDB and epguides use year exclusively. I am sure there are some editors that would suggest we switch to "by year" as a default as well, for WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. I'd oppose that just as much as this move to country default. -- Netoholic @ 15:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is all your opinion. The problem is, no one else seem to agree with it, because common sense is telling most editors that we should diambiguate "by country" instead of "by year", when it's easy and straight-forward to do so. Again, one editor cannot block a consensus when it's shown to exist, and it's clearly shown here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NCVG adds year first and never considers country of origin (instead platform after). NCFILM adds year first and only after says to add e.g. year country film. NCBOOKS, NCOPERA, NCMUSIC, NCMDAB go to primary creator first (not reasonable here). NCMDAB goes to year subsequently. NCCOMICS more-or-less defers to other media type NCs. So, the year seems to be the most likely first-choice for media disambiguation where additional disambiguation is necessary. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is for movies, because there are far fewer of them (with the same title), and they only run for a relatively short period of time (in theaters). However, in television, "title stealing/sharing" for TV shows from one country to the next is far more rampant, and television series usually run multiple seasons, which makes "by year" disambiguation far less WP:RECOGNIZABLE to readers than "by country" disambig. Again, I'm not making the preference for "by country" disambiguation up – it's been shown to be preferred for TV series over and over again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Even a year range like (2008-2016) is shorter than most country disambiguators. -- Netoholic @ 16:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's still not as WP:RECOGNIZABLE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Debatable. But it wins out on the other three WP:CRITERIA - natural (matches what IMDb and other sites use), very precise, and shorter/concise. -- Netoholic @ 16:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Izno, the difference between TV and the other media you gave, is that television has a very strong association with a country and in almost all cases, a television production is from one country. Unlike films which have a lot of co-productions from other countries, making disambiguation awkward (American-Britih-Canadian film) vs (2000 film); books where the association with a country is secondary (if at all) to a casual reader. A casual reader, might read a book in their native language without ever knowing the original country of origin, as books are mostly translated, even Harry Potter was translated to American English; Video games - I doubt anyone not very familiar with the game or developer would even know what the country of origin of Diddy Kong Racing is and even if it were disambiguated as "Diddy Kong Racing (British game)", that would not help a lot, as the Donkey Kong franchise belongs to Nintendo, a Japanese company and this was at a time where Rare was a second-party developer of Nintendo, making the association Japanese by nature. In television however, Happy Family (U.S. TV series) is more recognizable to readers than Happy Family (2003 TV series). As you almost always know what country a show is from. --Gonnym (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Time and time again RMs have shown that the community prefers a country disambiguation over a year disambiguation as that is much more recognizable to the readers. --Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple disambiguation methods pre-existed this guideline, and both year and country disambiguation styles have been documented in it without specifying either one as a default for its entire history. If you want to change 15 years of consensus, you will need something more than your say-so that consensus has changed. Let's make an RFC with the options of "country default", "year default", and "status quo/no preference" as options. For many, if you're going to force the issue and make one a default, they might think year to be the better option per it being precise (not having to worry about the "country aired" vs "country originated" vs "country filmed" questions), concise/shorter, and would have fewer overlaps (less need for double disambiguation). -- Netoholic @ 15:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CCC. That's the point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Demonstrate it. Vaguely citing a dozen RMs (which somehow shrunk to barely 9 above) is not demonstrating convincingly a change to using a default. (Related?) -- Netoholic @ 16:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As for the text. I think the recent change is not quite there. I'd change:
  • Generally the preferred disambiguation when shows are distinct due to region, especially when used to distinguish regional versions of the same format/premise. to
    • Generally the preferred disambiguation when additional disambiguation is needed. Used to distinguish shows with the same title from different countries.
  • Generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same region and/or across multiple regions. to
    • Generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same country.

This simplifies the language and makes it clearer, as the current text conflicts itself. --Gonnym (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with this proposal, esp. replacing "region" with "country". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]