Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 10

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

Pilot naming standards

I'm a bit confused about the naming convention for TV Pilots, it seems odd. Right now we have the following model:

  • Pilot (TV show name)
  • TV show name (TV Series)
  • TV show name (Film)

For example:

All of the DAB entries start with "The X-Files", with the single exception of the Pilot episode, which I just added:

This is the only discussion I've seen thus far on the naming of pilots: [1]

This naming standard seems strange to me, that the article name would start off with "pilot" and not the name of the show. It appears to not only be inconsistent and confusing, but it doesn't make sense to me. Personally, I think it should be Name of Show (Pilot), e.g. "The X-Files (TV Pilot), that way they'd all be the same format, a consistency across all the article names.

I think the naming standard should be:

If there are multiple films, then

Another issue is when the pilot show's title is "Pilot", as in Fringe TV Series Pilot..."Pilot"...and in the article title Pilot (Fringe), "fringe" is almost meaningless...it can mean many things, perhaps a Surrey with a Fringe on top. At first, I thought it was some kind of Fringe topic, but it's a TV show pilot...and the name of the pilot episode is not "Pilot", so it's doubly confusing....

Also, I'm wondering if we have first shows being incorrectly called "pilots" per TV pilot distinctions, and if we have any standards to classify notable pilots versus non-notable pilots (or all they all notable if they have the standard industry reviews?). Dreadstar † 21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now pilots are not taken with any distinction from other episodes of the series. The naming convention is Name of Episode (Name of Series). Generally, pilot episodes do not have names. Instead of naming the article Pilot episode of Name of Series we went with Pilot (Name of Series) as if Pilot were the name of the episode. If a pilot has an actual name, that would be used instead, Brains and Eggs or Broken Bow (Enterprise). Jay32183 (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I would think a consistent naming standard only makes sense. Using the Series title first and then adding subsets of that title for example, Pilot or fringe or Series as Dreadstar outlines above creates a standard, easy to remember way of naming.
Ist Shows vs Pilots: TV pilot distinguishes first shows from pilots. I would think the industry itself, possibly producers would be the final word on whether something is a first show or a pilot. A first show would be included in the Series article I would think, rather than have a separate article given to it as a pilot might.
I haven't seen standards for notability of a pilot. Is Wikipedia the place to have article about every pilot made which would be the case unless standards are set. Pilots fail and disappear. They are in general meant to test the audience "waters" Should this be taken into consideration when defining notability?(olive (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC))
Jay32183, would you be able to provide a link to the discussion that led to the decision to use "Pilot (Name of Series) as if Pilot were the name of the episode"? I'd like read it over to gain a better understanding of that decision. Thanks! Dreadstar † 04:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It was never a separate discussion. We never had reason to distinguish between pilots and other episodes of a series. Other than the potential for sources there's nothing different between episode 0 and episode 5. X-Files (pilot) creates an inconsistent naming scheme with the other episodes, as well as one thats less meaningful. It isn't a pilot named X-Files. X-Files (TV series) is a TV series named X-Files and X-Files (film) is a film named X-Files. Titles of articles name the thing they're about then categorize them as necessary. Technically, Pilot episode of The X-Files would be the most accurate title, but Pilot (X-Files) gives the same implication with fewer words. Pilot (Smallville) is probably the best example of an article on a pilot episode and there hasn't been any confusion with it's title. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also, we like to keep things simple. Separating out pilots makes things more complicated than they need to be. Jay32183 (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I see no reason at all to make the naming convention of an unnamed pilot episode inconsistent with other episodes and with named pilot episodes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. First, Wikipedia doesn't function on the premise that "if it ain't, broke don't fix it", secondly, I do think this pilot naming standard is "broke." I've already stated that I find it confusing, and I believe that Smallville (TV pilot) is just as simple, even more so because we aren't creating an apparent episode name. To me Pilot (Smallville) could be an actual episode title...since "Pilot" replaces what would ordinarily be an episode name. And by this very naming standard, we are indeed distinguishing between pilots and other episodes - and you know, I do think we need to distinguish between a pilot and a standard production episode in the article's title, and perhaps even identify a "special" episode (e.g. a 2-hour special or TV Movie). A pilot is a type of show and should be identified in the same manner as we do with (film), (TV series), etc. That's consistency and simplicity combined.
We also have to keep in mind how the television industry refers to TV pilots, the majority of professional outlets seem to use the format: "Smallville: {Pilot)", they don't call it "Pilot (Smallville)": IMDb, Rewind, TV.COM, TV.COM Cast, Yahoo TV, Amazon.com, Tower Video, even the station, The CW, has it listed as "Smallville" with the sub: "Pilot" [2].
Not to be too funny, but what if the name of the pilot episode of a series called "Pilot" is "Pilot", that would necessitate something like Pilot (Pilot) or Pilot (Pilot of Pilot), whereas "Pilot (TV pilot)" would be far simpler and easier to understand. Dreadstar † 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Nor does Wikipedia work on the idea of emulating IMDB, TV.com, nor Amazon.com. I see no reason to add unnecessary complexity to the naming convention. And one series is a bad example. If its named "Pilot" it would be Pilot (TV series) same as it would be if it is not named pilot. I don't see any reason to differentiate a pilot from a regular episode. It may be a "type" of episode, but that doesn't matter. Or shall we also different season finales, season premieres, or series premieres? What about television specials? Should their articles also have special naming conventions. And how shall we differentiate a "pilot" from a "series premiere" as both terms are used and they do not always mean the same thing. Shall we treat all of those episodes differently just because of a minor difference? What is the actual percentage of television series WITH notable pilots where the pilot is unnamed rather than named "Pilot" or given some other episode name? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry AnmaFinotera, but that's almost exactly how Wikipedia works, “Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.” as well as following the principle of least astonishment, Very few people are going to type in “Pilot Smallville”, they’re going to type in “Smallville pilot”. As for the Pilot actually named "Pilot" of a TV Series named Pilot, it would be titled "Pilot (Pilot)" and Pilot (TV Series) under the current naming standards, it's far less complex and confusing to just say Pilot (TV pilot), and Pilot (TV series). Not sure about identifying a "series premier" in an article title, could be "Series name (premier)" if we need to make that distinction. There's generally a much greater distinction between a series episode or series premier and the Pilot of a series, as older ≠ wiser points out below. Some pilots never generate a series at all, or the series may be vastly different than the original pilot. There may even be multiple pilots for the same series or concept. Dreadstar † 20:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
If we go by the most easily recognized name, we cannot use you method at all because the pilot episode of a series is only known by the name of the series if the series wasn't picked up. For instance, no one refers to the pilot of The X-Files as The X-Files. The name is completely inappropriate. If a pilot is unnamed its most accurate title would be Pilot episode of Series Name, which is more complicated than it needs to be. The only difference between a pilot episode and any other episode that matters to Wikipedia is the availability of sources. Availability of sources does not call for a new naming convention. That just doesn't make sense. Unnamed pilot episodes are most often called "The Pilot" or "Pilot", even outside of Wikipedia. So pretending Pilot is the name of the episode makes us the same as industry professionals. Basically, your proposal violates the KISS priciple for the sake of instruction creep. Jay32183 (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
No, that's entirely incorrect, I never said what you're saying. I agree that no one calls the pilot of The X-Files just "The X-Files", they call it The X-Files Pilot", no one really calls it "Pilot X-Files" - except us, I guess.. :) If a pilot is not picked up as a series, then there is no series to name it after...it's just the pilot. For instance if the Smallville Pilot had not been picked up, there would have been no "series" and it would have been referred to as the "Smallville Pilot". As far as "..pretending Pilot is the name of the episode makes us the same as industry professionals": no, it does not, it merely violates WP:NOR and WP:V because industry professionals do not "pretend" that the title of their Pilot is "Pilot", nor does the public think the title of a pilot is "pilot". Dreadstar † 00:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • How about "TV show (Pilot)" — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Dreadstar † 04:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree. The X-Files (Pilot), The X-Files (TV series), and The X-Files (Film) make much more sense than how the naming is now. Consistency is a good thing. :) Ariel♥Gold 09:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
As per AerielGold, consistency is critical on Wikipedia especially as it gets larger otherwise we'll be back here again in a short while discussing the same concerns. Consistency creates a "template" of sorts for this situation, and creates ease for editors. What we had before wasn't any of these things. Can't we just make it as easy as possible to deal with. Dreadstar's version is consistent.(olive (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC))
As I explained above, that version actually makes things inconsistent. A pilot is still an episode of a TV series and should be treated the same as others. The way it is now is consistent, making the change suggested is not. Jay32183 (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
But a pilot is not just another episode -- and implying that the name of a pilot is "Pilot" is also inconsistent. There is often many differences between the pilot and the actual series, ranging from things like the opening/closing sequences or theme music to new/changed case members. IMO, a pilot should be marked as distinct from the regular series episodes. older ≠ wiser 09:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Well put, older ≠ wiser, I completely concur. Dreadstar † 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, it is wrong to say "A pilot is still an episode of a TV series and should be treated the same as others.", because in addition to the points made above by older ≠ wiser, not all pilots generate a television series, and not all TV series have pilots. Dreadstar † 00:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Now, now. Well, I suppose if he's going to use that as his username, he deserves what he gets. LOL. Anyway, really this is about having a convention that makes some kind of sense. What's the big deal? Why not have something that is logical that people, even, like, gasp, noobs, can understand? Have so you could say "It's always like this: you have the series name and then the episode/pilot name" That way it is like a tree: the root of the tree is the franchise, say as above the X-Files. Then under that you should have variations on that theme. As it is, you have multiple roots to the tree, and it sucks. It isn't a concept, it's an evolved system which is confusing. Needs to be straightened out. What are you guys, Window$ fans? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see an invocation of KISS and instruction creep above. At the risk of beating a dead parrot, a convention that begins with the most general point and then becomes more specific is logical, and well used in may areas, and creates a template or formula that any user can just fill in. There's very little instruction required. One always begins with the series name -the general One then adds what aspect of the series is being named-the specifc. This is a hyper simple formula.(olive (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC))
What about "Dexter (episode)", it's always said to be "Dexter", but a PR reviewer thought we should move the article to "Pilot (Dexter)". Personally, I think the article name is fine now, there are no mentions of the episode being titled "pilot", but there are mentions of the episode being named "Dexter". What should I do?--Music26/11 17:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It appears that "Dexter" is the official title. Sources that always include the series title even say "Dexter: Dexter" or "Dexter — Dexter". Dexter (Dexter) would end up being the title if the guideline were strictly followed. Dexter (episode) seems more meaningful. Jay32183 (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Unnamed TV pilot naming standards

  • Question: Should the television pilot naming standard be in the form of "Pilot (show name)" or "Show name (Pilot)" or some other format? (For further details, see the discussion in the section above this one: Pilot naming standards.)
  • Current standard:
  • Pilot (TV show name)
  • TV show name (TV Series)
  • TV show name (Film)
For example:

All of the DAB entries start with "The X-Files", with the single exception of the Pilot episode, which I just added:

This is the only discussion I've seen thus far on the naming of pilots: [3]

  • Proposed new standard:

RFC Responder comments

  • As I see it, there are two issues here: consistency and WP:NOR. Different people have been seeing the consistency in different ways, depending on what they think the "real name" of the pilot episodes in question are. If the "real name" of the X-Files pilot is The X-Files, then it seems more consistent with general Wikipedia naming practices to name the article about that episode The X-Files (pilot). But if the "real name" is "Pilot", then it's more consistent with general Wikipedia naming practices to name the article Pilot (The X-Files). The way to resolve this apparent conflict is to determine what reliable sources call the episode. In this case, a reliable source might be a review of the episode in a newspaper, or an official episode guide for The X-Files. I own such a guide, but I'm not at home right now to check it.

    When a television pilot goes to series, what is the standard way to which that pilot episode is referred? I presume that during production a pilot is often called by the name of the series, since there's no need to distinguish it from other episodes yet. But if it does go to series, and the pilot is not given an individual title like Encounter at Farpoint, then it's often called "Pilot", or at least listed that way in publications. If such publications can be found to confirm that this is the general practice in the television industry and in the critical apparatus surrounding it, then that would support the naming of articles as "Pilot (name of series)". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on responses

Yeah, but it could be done just with a redirect, for the sake of making things logical. "Pilot (name of series)" --> "Name of Series (Pilot)." ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Whichever way the consensus develops, I agree that the path not taken should be a redirect. (That is, if discussion settles on "Pilot (name of series)", then "Name of series (Pilot)" should redirect there, and if discussion settles on "Name of series (Pilot)", "Pilot (name of series)" should redirect there.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as The X-Files', from the pilot episode script, it looks like it's called "The X-Files, pilot episode". A photo of the original copy at the Smithsonian also shows the same title across the top of each page: [4]. I don't think "pilot episode" is the actual name of the pilot, it's just what it is...the pilot... :) Dreadstar † 05:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You've missed Josiah Rowe's point if you're confirming the name with a script. Scripts are pre-production information. For a series that not only was picked up but had several successful seasons, we should be using post-production publication published by those not involved, such television critics and historians. Jay32183 (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I've confimed it every which way, original script,[5] production,[6] release, IMDb, advertising [7][8](at: 2:54), and reviews [9][10][11][12] - this was merely the final piece. I've yet to see evidence that its name is "Pilot". I'm not certain that I totally agree that we're restricted to only what post-production publications by those not involved called it, but it appears to me that virtually every source calls it "The X-Files Pilot", not "Pilot". The name of the X-Files pilot is not "pilot", that's the type of show it is. The Pilot episode. Dreadstar † 09:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the iMDB title is just pilot. If you look at any other episode page you'll notice they all begin with "The X-Files" in large print with the name of the episode in small print. The MSN site uses a similar technique with all episodes prefaced by "The X-Files". The cover art at Amazon shows that the two episodes on the video are Pilot and Deep Throat, read the very top of the art. You've actually shown that the episode is called "Pilot" when it's clear that The X-Files is the series at hand, and "The X-Files" is added to it in some way when the series needs to be indicated. The standard way to do that on Wikipedia is Pilot (The X-Files), which when piped([[Pilot (The X-Files)|]]) produces Pilot. You also didn't find anyone referring to the episode as just "The X-Files", which your suggestion for The X-Files (Pilot) implies. ([[The X-Files (Pilot)|]] → The X-Files) Jay32183 (talk) 09:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't, if you look, it actually says "The X-Files" Pilot (1993); which, by your logic, would mean the title is actually "Pilot (1993)", which it isn't. "Pilot (1993)" is merely the description, not the actual title. There's inconsistency everywhere, which is part of the problem. What you've just shown, really, is that our entire naming standard is backwards, it should be "Series Name (episode name)". I haven't seen any source that titles the X-Files or Smallville pilots as just "Pilot", it's always "X-Files Pilot episode" or "The X-files Pilot", or "Smallville pilot", nowhere but here is it "Pilot (X-Files)" or Pilot (Smallville). That's the actual point, the name of the episode, according to the producers, advertisers, reviews, etc, is not "Pilot", it is "'The X-Files' - pilot episode". We just can't pretend that the name of the pilot is "Pilot", and the sum of my evidence shows that it's not.
And in reality, it doesn't matter what IMDb calls it, nor what Amazon or the critics call it, the show can really only be named by those that created and own it, the producers or production company, such as I've proven with the original script, trailers, and the show’s own credits….I don’t see how those can be overridden. Say that every Critic called it “The Crap-Files” had it been lousy (or “crappy”…;), we certainly wouldn’t use that as a title..! Nor would we title it "Pilot (1993)" just because IMDb appears to.[13] But even sources such as IMDb, Amazon and the critics call it "The X-Files pilot", not "episode 'Pilot' of the X-Files". No matter how you slice it, the name is just not "Pilot".
I don't see how my proposed naming standard implies anything except that the article is about the X-Files pilot episode. The standard does not imply what its name is any more than "The X-Files Pilot Episode" does. And the piping issue is a non-starter, it would merely be piped as [[X-Files (pilot) | The X-Files pilot episode]]...besides, there's already The X-Files. Dreadstar † 23:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it shows that every single source refers to the episode as only "Pilot". What I'm actually trying to tell you is that you don't understand the standard naming convention for all Wikipedia articles, or disambiguation standards. If the parenthetical part of the title is remved the title still needs to be accurate, it could just be applied to more than one article. Not one source referred to the pilot as "The X-Files" so naming the article The X-Files (Pilot) is incorrect. My point with Amazon was that the cover of the video, official merchandise, indicates that the title of the episode is in fact "Pilot". Also, iMDB did not call the episode Pilot (1993), as every title on iMDB is followed by it's year of release. I wanted you not just to check the Pilot pages but those of other television episodes. If you are right that the title is The X-Files Pilot, then the second episode is The X-Files Deep Throat. Episode title are never used without the series title unless it's clear from the context what series is being discussed. Based on WP:NAME and WP:DAB the title of the article on the pilot episode of The X-Files should be Pilot (The X-Files). There are sources calling the episode Pilot and the are none calling it The X-Files. Jay32183 (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
My point was the producers, creators, owners, script, trailers and actual pilot credits themselves do not list the name of the X-Files pilot as "Pilot". All IMDb is doing, and all the package advertising on the video is doing is deliniating the show as the pilot. This does not mean the name is actually "Pilot". Our naming standard is explicitly saying that the name is "Pilot". I haven't seen that proven with evidence yet. And we do put "type" into parenthesis, e.g. The X-Files (film) and The X-Files (books), so putting the type "pilot" into parenthesis fits. Looks like you and I will just have to agree to disagree and leave it to consensus to decide. Dreadstar † 00:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Our naming standard does not claim that Pilot is an official title. If you look at Pilot (Smallville), the word pilot appears in the opening sentence in lowercase letters. The episode is named neither Pilot nor The X-Files. However, the episode is referred to as Pilot but not as The X-Files. If the article were at The X-Files (pilot) then we're saying "This thing known as The X-Files is a pilot". The current naming scheme has us saying "This thing called a pilot is a part of The X-Files" which is significantly more accurate. Jay32183 (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
What has been claimed repeatedly on this page is that our naming standard does indeed "claim" that pilot is the title, even so far as saying that we are "pretending" that it is the title. Since the episode name is clearly identified first by our current standards, and "Pilot" is in that place, I must disagree with you on this as well - not to mention the level of accuracy you claim. Dreadstar † 13:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
At least you have an excellent grasp of what the word pretend means. The episode does not have a name. Wikipedia articles are named for what things are called. The sources you found demonstrate that, even if unofficially, the episode is called "pilot" and not "The X-Files". You may want to refer to WP:NAME and WP:DAB again, since this naming convention is supposed to be a derivative of those. Jay32183 (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
At the very least, the Pilot (Smallville) infobox disagrees with you. If, as you say, the "episode does not have a name", then we surely cannot "pretend" that it does, per WP:NOR and WP:V. I won't bother going into details about the other deficiencies in the logic presented by the arguments you've made and the naming standard you support, as I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree for now. Dreadstar † 22:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Consistency has to be considered again and again. Wikipedia is not consistent on this, for example look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_X-Files_(song). This isn't consistent with what your saying above Jay. The final word on consistency :must be the production company, and whatever Wikipedia is doing now should be brought into line with that.
  • This is a confusing statement: Not one source referred to the pilot as "The X-Files" so naming the article The X-Files (Pilot) is incorrect. IMDb calls the pilot episode "The X Files" Pilot(1993). Doesn't this negate your point.
  • Still referring to the IMDb reference, semantically and syntactically, "The" and "X-Files" have been placed in quotes. This indicates a title. Pilot is not in quotes. This indicates descriptive of what the title is. Its a pilot. 1993 is also not in quotes. This is a release date. Again, like pilot, not in quotes, so not a title. The only aspect in quotes is "The X-Files". Because it is in quotes it has to be a title as per the rules and principles that govern our language.
  • Logically the first X-Files pilot would not have needed to be named. We have to remember no one had ever seen an x-Files before so there wasn't necessarily a need to distinguish this first episode, and certainly not from anything else because there was no guarantee there would be anything else . A subtitle would have only confused the public. If the pilot had not been successful, in the annals of time there would have been a clear description of what had been shown ... The X-Files ...its pilot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)
    • You've misread the iMDB title by not reading the name of any other episode. The first episode may say "The X-Files" Pilot (1993), but the second episode says "The X-Files" Deep Throat (1993). When analyzing the iMDB title you have to understand iMDB practices, not just standard English. See the episode list so you can see how the episodes are actually named. Also, The X-Files (song) is named exactly as I'm saying above. The song is called The X-Files. The Wikipedia article name matches what the thing is actually called, and that's what I've been arguing for. Jay32183 (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You're right IMDb uses quotes around every X-Files and I missed that. "Quotes" is still an English language naming convention, and means X=Files is being designated as a title, and episodes are subtitles. My above argument then, that Pilot is not a title of course doesn't hold. As a final comment I would suggest that we have certain kinds of shared, implied knowledge and one (less profound for sure ) is that a pilot is not a title but a description , and I would argue, completely without basis except for our conventions, that pilot is not a title but a place holder because there is no subtitle for the first episode because one wasn't needed. Had the series failed the title X-Files would have been all that was needed..... Just had to have a last word :0).(olive (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC))
You are wrong about iMDB again. They put the name of the series in quote for every episode of every TV series. That's why I wanted you to check the episode list, so you could episode names in isolation. It is irrelevant to Wikipedia naming if Pilot is an official name or just what people call it. We name articles based on what the subject is called. Unnamed pilots are generally called pilot, and that's what's been shown in all the sources. Therefore the existing naming convention is correct. Jay32183 (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Jay I just agreed with what you had said, see my first line above in the last post. Now you are saying I'm wrong. I'm confused. And even more confused with:"We name articles based on what the subject is called" but by whom if not the official name or just what people call it. Who's naming it. These arguments are not making any sense at all. If your argument is to hold on to what Wikipedia is doing now, fine, say that , but these arguments seem contradictory and illogical given that I agree with you and then you turn and tell me I fundamentally have it wrong. Pretty much in the dark! (olive (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

Consistency

Indeed, consistency is an issue. But it isn't just the consistency of Wikipedia, it is consistency in the television industry. Some shows have a name for the pilot, others simply call it "Pilot". (Examples would be the pilot for Star Trek, which was titled "The Cage", the pilot for Grey's Anatomy, which was named "A Hard Day's Night", and X-Files, whose first episode was not given as anything but "Pilot", even years later). Most shows show the title in the opening sequence, and X-Files is no exception. I only have Seasons 3+ on DVD for the show, so it would be interesting to see the pilot again, and see if it gives a title at all, or if it does call it "Pilot". (Personally, I would prefer to omit "pilot" from any episode that has an actual name, and use the lead sentence to explain that it was the pilot episode for the series, but many other shows do not give the pilot a name, so therein lies the issue of how the title should be ordered. Additionally, readers looking for a pilot episode may not know the name, so if they search for "Show - Pilot" they wouldn't find it if it weren't in the title.) I agree with redirecting, to a standard naming format for pilot episodes, as Martin suggests. As for what that standard should be, I still think Series (Pilot) is logical. For shows that give the pilot a name, then Series (Pilot: Name) seems logical, but it could end up being a huge line of text for some shows that use long title names, lol. Ariel♥Gold 11:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for "Series (Pilot: Name)" — in cases like "City of" (the pilot for Angel (TV series)) there's no reason to move a perfectly clear, unambiguous and accurate title to some Frankensteinian title like Angel (Pilot: City of). This discussion shouldn't concern itself with series whose pilot episodes have unambiguous names. Personally, I don't even think that shows with titled pilot episodes which have ambiguous names should be part of this discussion. Indeed, there are good arguments against trying to force named pilots into this schema — for example, the original Star Trek had two pilots, The Cage (Star Trek) and Where No Man Has Gone Before. Moving those articles to Star Trek (Pilot: The Cage) and Star Trek (Pilot: Where No Man Has Gone Before) would add confusion, not relieve it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that, the scope of this was not meant to address named pilots or episodes - just unnamed pilots. Dreadstar † 23:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To add another nit-picky issue into the fray, should the word "pilot" be capitalized in the title, or not? X-Files (Pilot) or X-Files (pilot)? I'd vote for capitalization, because when shows are not named, the word "Pilot" is capitalized. Ariel♥Gold 11:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, it depends on whether the word "pilot" is to be considered the name of the episode (e.g., "...in "Pilot", Gillian Anderson had not yet begun dying her hair the red color later associated with the character of Scully") or a description of the episode ("in the pilot episode, Gillian Anderson..."). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well that goes without saying, but has nothing to do with the issue. I was not referring to mentioning it in prose, but in the capitalization of the word "Pilot" in article titles. In the examples Dreadstar gave, the word "Pilot" is capitalized, but in the example given by Josiah, he did not capitalize it inside the parentheses. Ariel♥Gold 21:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to pardon my caps, they don't always obey the laws of nature or the man behind the keyboard. Dreadstar † 23:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Pay no attention to that cap behind the curtain!

One article that will almost certainly need to be moved, whatever we decide here: M*A*S*H the Pilot, which doesn't conform to either model we're debating. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Josiah, did you happen to see if your official X-Files episode guide says the name of the show is "Pilot" or is it just referred to as the "pilot episode" of The X-Files or "The X-Files pilot"? Does it say the pilot's actual name is "Pilot"? Dreadstar † 23:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I finally got home, and found... that my official X-Files episode guide is not on my shelves. I think it might be in storage. I did find an unofficial guide, X-Treme Possibilities: A Paranoid Rummage Through The X-Files by Paul Cornell, Martin Day and Keith Topping. It was published by Virgin Books in 1997, and is "totally unauthorized". (Before anyone uses this to dismiss it out of hand, I should point out that some people have argued on this very page that an unauthorized publication is preferable to an authorized one, at least for purposes of establishing episode notability, because it's "independent of the subject" in a way that an official episode guide isn't.) This book lists the first episode as "“The X-Files’ [a.k.a. “Pilot’]. So that's clear as mud. I did also check my X-Files Season One DVD set: the first disc contains episodes which are titled (in the DVD menus, not in the episodes themselves — The X-Files didn't put episode titles on screen) "Pilot", "Deep Throat", "Squeeze" and "Conduit". Our articles for those episodes are at Pilot (The X-Files), Deep Throat (The X-Files episode), Squeeze (The X-Files) and Conduit (The X-Files).
In the official department, I did find an official guidebook for Lost, another series with an untitled pilot episode. That guidebook lists the first three episodes as "PILOT EPISODE", "TABULA RASA", and "WALKABOUT". The Lost Season 1 DVD menu lists the episodes as "PILOT-PART 1", "PILOT-PART 2", "TABULA RASA" and "WALKABOUT". Our articles for those are at Pilot (Lost), Tabula Rasa (Lost) and Walkabout (Lost). To me, this seems both reasonable and consistent. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
So, does this mean you support the view that "Pilot" is the "official" episode name? Or just that the naming sequence has a sufficient match to be reasonable and consistent? Or is the jury still out, awaiting more evidence? Dreadstar † 04:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm increasingly of the view that there is no "official" episode name for cases like this. I agree that "Pilot episode" is more of a descriptor than a title, as evidenced by the script; however, when reliable third-party sources want to distinguish the pilot episode from later, named episodes, they often call it "Pilot". (One semi-official case in point is this episode guide on TNT's website.) I don't think that the episode is titled "The X-Files" either — that's the name of the series, and the pilot episode has no individual title.
What does that mean for our article naming purposes? Well, I think that the current naming scheme works well enough with what the reliable sources use. "Pilot" isn't really the title, but it's used as the title by reliable sources, so we can do so as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like people are coming around to the idea of making it fully consistent. With named pilots, would you have to say in the title it is a pilot? If you did not, then a named pilot is done just the same as a episode. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly feel that named pilots like "City of" and "The Cage (Star Trek)" should be treated just like any other named episode with regard to naming. The only matter that should be under discussion here is what to do with pilots which do not have individual names (or which are named "Pilot", depending on your viewpoint). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

An additional point

The precedent of Pilot (Smallville), mentioned above, could be seen as another argument against changing the naming convention for unnamed pilots. Specifically, Pilot (Smallville) made it through a peer review and the FAC process, successfully becoming a featured article, without anyone questioning the way it was named. There was one suggestion about renaming the article at Talk:Pilot (Smallville)#Rename?, made on the day the article was TFA on the front page, and briefly responded to in the negative. Other than that, nobody's suggested that the article's naming was problematic. Of course, consensus can change, but by the time an article has made it to FA and has appeared on the front page, it's generally been passed over by a number of eyeballs. The fact that only one person, in passing, questioned the article's title, may indicate a consensus in favor of the current naming practice for unnamed pilot articles. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for researching all this and for your thoughtful responses, I see what you mean, but I happen to disagree. By our naming standards we are de-facto making "Pilot" the official name, which does not match the creator's or copyright holder's intent, nor does it truly match what the reliable sources are saying, and according to the primary sources I've seen, it doesn't match those either. I also can't agree that the apparent consistency in the names created by having the series name in parenthesis is a true consistency, nor, again, does it truly match what the reliable sources are saying, it's actually structured in the opposite. Perhaps this can be alllayed by changing the naming standards entirely, making a change to something like "Series name (episode or type)", where the content of the parenthesis can be either the title or type. This would greatly diminish the issue of what the official name of the pilot is or what it's called in reliable sources, either way it would be "The X-Files (Pilot)" (pardon the lack of capital distinctions. I'll have to read through the previous discussions on why the format "Episode name (Series name)" was chosen, becuase it doesn't present the very best match for our other standards, which gives us The X-Files (film), The X-Files (books) or even the lovely The X-Files (song). As Martin says above, things are not fully consistent, and I think we can do better. Dreadstar † 22:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Dreadstar has referred a couple of times to the intent of the copyright holder and/or creator. That's not actually the criterion we use on Wikipedia. We use common names. If there's clear evidence that the pilot episode of The X-Files is referred to as "Pilot" more commonly than as "The X-Files", then we should call it "Pilot", even if the official sources call it The X-Files. I may have sent the discussion in a misleading direction when I talked about the "real name" early on. I should instead have talked about the "most commonly used name".
I think that the evidence we've seen indicates that these pilot episodes have no official names, and that they are most commonly referred to using "Pilot" as a name. That's what the DVDs and episode guides tend to use. Placing the article at The X-Files (pilot) instead of Pilot (The X-Files) is analogous to placing the article for the current U.S. President at George Walker Bush instead of George W. Bush. The former is the name on his birth certificate, but the latter is the one that's most commonly used, and where his Wikipedia article is located.
Finally, as to the question of whether readers will know episode titles or not: I actually suspect that most episode articles are navigated to not through the search box, but through lists of episodes. If we add redirects in the format of The X-Files (pilot), then readers who think that schema seems logical will arrive at their intended destination, but the article will still be at the "most comonly used name". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, seriously now. Let's examine basic disambiguation criteria. Would any reasonable person enter "pilot" into the search box and expect to get to the article for The X-Files pilot episode? I mean really. "Pilot (The X-Files)" implies that if no disambiguation were necessary, the article could be titled as simply "Pilot" -- but I don't think any reasonable person would suggest that and I don't think Wikipedia naming conventions support that either. older ≠ wiser 03:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, personally, I'd be more willing to support the fairly minor change from Pilot (The X-Files) to The X-Files (pilot) or The X-Files (pilot episode), and keeping other episode articles named as they are, than to support restructuring the overall TV episode naming conventions. The current conventions reflect the result of some long and hard fought discussions, and I really don't want to go there again. However, the issue of how to title pilot episodes wasn't really part of those discussions, and it would be much easier to add an exception for pilot episodes than to completely rework our episode naming guidelines. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two forms of "consistency" here. "Series (pilot)" might look consistent with "Series (film)", but the naming pattern "Pilot (Series)" is meant to be consistent with other episode articles, and that makes more sense to me. I might support using "Pilot episode (Series)" to avoid some confusing titles like "Pilot (JAG)" (which exists as a redirect, not an article). There are maybe 50 articles on pilots, total (not counting redirects, which are probably another 50), so it seems silly to change every other episode article in order to "fix" a debatable problem with these 50-100 articles. Gimmetrow 21:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to support Jack-A-Roe's proposal as well, as per my past discussions. Gimmetrow would you mind clarifying the last couple of lines of your statement above. I apologize, but its not making sense for some reason. Many thanks.(olive (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC))
I think Gimmetrow is saying that it seems ridiculous to rename every episode article to solve a perceived (not actual) problem with a small number of them. It's basically the same point I made earlier when I pointed to WP:CREEP. The proposal makes things unnecessarily complicated for an issue that may not even be problematic to begin with. Jay32183 (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The (or rather a) problem with "Pilot (Series)" is that it is inappropriate by disambiguation standards unless it is presumed that users are expecting to find the article at simply "Pilot" and the parenthetical "(Series)" is required merely for disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 23:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
That's also one of the reasons I oppose changing the existing guideline even for an unnamed pilot. I want to have Pilot (Smallville) so I can pipe [[pilot (Smallville)|]] and see "pilot". When would we ever refer to the episode as just Smallville? When it's clear we're talking about Smallville we would just say "the pilot". The set up we have now let's the pipe trick work, and is in keeping with WP:NAME and WP:DAB. We need to invoke the KISS principle and avoid instruction creep. Jay32183 (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the policy WP:NAME, there it states: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. (The pipe trick is for editors, not for readers). Also, instruction creep refers to adding new rules; that does not apply here, because we're considering a change to existing instructions, not adding of new rules. The episode titles are not disambiguations, so WP:DAB doesn't apply. I'm not positive the change I proposed is the best method, though considering there has been some support for that approach, I thought it might be useful to address some of the objections. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The Simpsons (Radioactive Man) (episode) is not "optimized for readers". Radioactive Man (The Simpsons episode) at least makes some sense. Gimmetrow 01:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you wrote " The Simpsons (Radioactive Man) (episode)" - no-one has suggested anything like that. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Since there's a character too, the word "episode" is needed. For episodes that are not named after characters, the word "episode" would not be needed, though in the special case of untitled pilot episodes, the term "(pilot episode)" is better than just "Pilot" to avoid confusion with an episode thaqt uses the word "Pilot" as a title.


Straw poll

  • This is a proposal to change the current naming standard for unnamed television pilots from "Pilot (series name)" to "Series name (pilot)" or "Series name (pilot episode). {e.g. from "Pilot (Smallville)" and "Pilot (House)" to "House (pilot)" or "House (pilot episode)" and "Smallville (pilot)" or "Smallville (pilot episode)". This is only about pilot episodes which do not have individual names and would not affect episodes with individual titles, such as City of and The Cage (Star Trek).
  • The discussion on this started here: TV pilot naming standards. I hope everyone will read through that discussion before commenting here. Dreadstar † 04:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I mildly oppose this proposal, as I feel that it adds unneeded complications to an already complex (but rational) system which is in keeping with general Wikipedia article naming guidelines. However, if a clear majority of interested editors feels that this is more logical than the existing pattern, I will accede. This issue was not really part of the previous discussions, so whatever consensus is reached here will not represent an overturning of the prior arbitration. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support for my own proposal, of course. Coming into this as outsider to TV naming standards discussions, I saw a problem with our standard for unnamed pilots. I was getting ready to watch the first episode of “Fringe” after noticing we had an article on it: Pilot (Fringe). Didn't read the article, but from the article's title, it looked like the name of the episode was “Pilot”, which made sense because the advertisements presented the show as starting off with a commercial airliner that landed even though everyone on board was dead, so I thought the show might be about the pilot of that plane. To my surprise, the plane's pilot had nothing to do with the main plot of the show; he was just one of the victims. I read our article, and searched the internet to see if the name of the show was actually pilot..that’s when I noticed that all our unnamed pilots are named pilot – which made no sense to me at all, and was confusing.
I find the argument that all unnamed pilots are commonly named “pilot” to be unsourceable and somewhat baffling. If I walk up to a friend and ask her if she saw “Pilot”, she’s going to think I’m talking about an airplane movie; or if I ask Blockbuster for “Pilot”, they’re going to look at me funny…or hand me that airplane movie my friend and I ended up talking about. The name I would commonly use would be, “have you seen the Fringe pilot episode?” or “The Smallville pilot episode,” not just “Pilot”. I also noticed that the pilot episode for The X-Files wasn’t even on the X-Files dab page, so I added it.…but it’s backwards and doesn’t fit the rest of the names there: The_X-Files_(disambiguation) If it doesn’t fit, you must aqui….well, never mind that..but… :)
We shouldn’t be using “Pilot” as the title for an unnamed pilot episode; we should be using “Pilot” as a type, as in The X-Files (pilot), which fits with the other types, such as The X-Files (film), The X-Files (books) and The X-Files (song). Dreadstar † 00:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. The basic consideration, IMO, is that if disambiguation were not necessary, could the article be properly titled as "Pilot"? If not, then the current convention is incorrect. older ≠ wiser 01:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Whatever may or may not happen with the modified broader proposal, this limited proposal regarding TV pilot naming standards is important and should be adopted for the various reasons already noted. In particular, if it's not done this way, the disambiguation of the term "Pilot" is excessively burdened. Between the various forms, this one seems best: The X-Files (pilot episode) - it's the most clear version, since there might be an episode named "Pilot", by keeping it non-capitalized in the parenthesis, and adding the word "episode", no-one needs to wonder what's being described. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I Support Dreadstar's proposal as I have in the past. I can't see anything in the recent discussions that could lead me to change my mind. His proposal is a step towards consistency. In addition, his recent comment above indicates the biggest concern with the naming convention in place now, and that is, that the reader, and in this case one of our own experienced editors and an admin. had difficulties with it, imagine a reader who has never navigated Wikipedia trying to make sense of this system. Of the first importance, this encyclopedia must be user friendly, must cater to the reader first, and not the editor. If it doesn't, by the definition of what this encyclopedia is, the convention must be changed(olive (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC))
Yikes....I realized after posting this last night that my comment was less than complimentary. I've seen at different times Dreadstar has a good sense of humour so...My support and point stand, but reworded is, if even a savvy Wikipedian finds the present convention cumbersome so will probably the reader. The convention needs to be more reader friendly.(olive (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC))
  • Support. That's pretty funny that he'd have trouble with it. Perhaps I shouldn't blame the WP search as much as I do. I use Google instead of trying to figure out what they named things like that. This makes much more sense. Per older ≠ wiser. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose on the grounds that there has not been one logical argument for change to the existing guideline, or any evidence that a problem with Wikipedia even exists. There does seem to be a problem, but it has to do with people not understanding the basic naming and disambiguation guidelines or the meaning of the word "pilot" in the context of television. The pilots are not named "Pilot" but are called the pilot. Wikipedia article titles omit "the" unless part of a proper name. "Did you see the pilot of Fringe?" is a completely reasonable and understandable question. Changing from Pilot (The X-Files) to The X-Files (pilot) doesn't make sense. Not only is the episode not named "The X-Files", it isn't called "The X-Files" either. The people supporting this proposal even found indisputable evidence that the episode is called (again, called not named, the words are not the same) "the pilot of The X-Files", and when the context is clear, simply "the pilot", even on official merchandising. Jay32183 (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support changing from “Pilot (series name)” to “Series name (pilot)” for unnamed pilot episodes. (e.g. change to “The X-Files (pilot episode)” — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support It has never made sense to me why the television series name is not given first, especially when so many first shows are not given names, but simply called "pilot". If you do a search for "Pilot" you come up with tons of results, (yes, some non-TV related, but scroll and there are plenty of TV shows where the article's title is "Pilot" (show)), you have to wade through pages and sift through all the results to find the "pilot" that relates to the show you're looking for. It is counter-intuitive. The standard should be "SeriesName (Pilot)". Pilot episodes are not technically named "pilot", but "pilot" is simply a description of the type of episode. (Yes, some pilots have names, and that's fine, but this is discussing those that don't have names.) The proper way to name the article for such shows should be the series name, followed in parentheses, by the word "pilot" which is the description of the type of episode, not a name. The X-Files was a TV show, it had a pilot episode with no name. Thus, it should be The X-Files (Pilot). (Now, whether the word in parentheses, "pilot" should be capitalized or not, is another issue. I think it should be, but whatever...) Ariel♥Gold 19:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
By the way, just in the first page of results, I count no less than twenty-two pages that refer to a TV show, and are called "Pilot". From these, a user has to find the show they wanted to find. (And this is why I too, use Google, instead of Wikipedia's search!) And, among the 22, there is absolutely no consistency at all, some give the show's name, and some say "episode" after the show's name, so the naming convention is not being followed in the system currently in use. This proposal would not only give consistency, but it is much more likely that someone would search for the pilot of a TV show by its name, rather than by the word "pilot". Ariel♥Gold 19:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Two major reasons why your support doesn't make sense. No pilot, even if unnamed, is ever referred to by the series name alone unless there are no other episodes. No one will search for an article on a pilot episode by searching for pilot and not the name of the series. They may not use the parenthetical if not familiar with the guideline, but they would include the name of the series. We should really be discussing this from a WP:NAME and WP:DAB perspective. This guideline explains how to conform to the general guidelines for television related articles. It is not intended to override them. We can't break a Wikipedia-wide consensus because a small group feels they're better qualified to discuss the issue. If pilot were in parentheses, it would be lowercase because it is not a proper noun. Jay32183 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • By the same logic, no one will ever look for the pilot episode of a particular series by typing in "pilot" -- it is by orders of magnitude more likely that a person looking for the pilot episode of a particular series and unfamiliar with the arcana of Wikipedia naming conventions would begin their search with the series name. Using a title such as Pilot (series name) is unsupported by either WP:UCN or WP:DAB. older ≠ wiser 19:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the poll

  • It looks like we have a consensus to change the unnamed television pilots standard from "Pilot (series name)" to "Series name (pilot episode)". I'll write up the wording change to the guideline and start making the change to the relevant articles. Dreadstar † 20:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely not a consensus. Consensus is determined by the strength of argument, not the number of votes. There is no consensus, especially since you wanted to agree to disagree. Only the opposes in this proposal are supported by the general policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. We don't get to have votes to do whatever we want in disregard of everything else going on on Wikipedia. Especially when the sources provided by supporters directly contradicts their position. Jay32183 (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. The declaration that consensus has been reached seems premature to me, to say the least (unless you're just counting votes). I also agree that only the opposition argument is supported by the general policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I can't even figure out what the support argument is, besides "we want it that way". I also think there is something to be said for considering the naming of each pilot episode article on an individual basis. Consensus has already been established for using the episode name when the pilot has a name, dabbed when necessary. For some pilots there might be evidence that the most common name to refer to it is the series name, in which case Series Name (pilot) would be an appropriate article title. But for those for which the only name ever used to refer to is "Pilot", Pilot (series name) seems to be the most reasonable title. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • While I agree there is as yet no clear consensus, I think it is fairly rare that there would be pilot episodes for series that are widely enough known as simply "pilot" to qualify for that title under use common names. Using a name such as Pilot (series name) implies that if no disambiguation were necessary the article could be titled as simply "Pilot". The current convention for naming pilot episodes fails both UCN and DAB. To satisfy those guidelines, we'd need to see strong evidence that that particular episode is commonly known as simply "pilot" -- especially outside the specialized context of DVD content listings (or websites that parrot such information). older ≠ wiser 19:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If you think it's rare that the episodes are known as pilot, find sources for a different name. If it's called pilot on official DVDs, it's unlikely that there's another title because they would have used that instead. We are, in fact, trying to indicate that the articles would be called "pilot" if there were no need to disambiguate. There is reason to disambiguate, even if only one TV series had used the word; pilots are the guys who fly planes after all. The first dab term in a TV episode article is the name of the series. The guideline is not unique to pilots in that respect, you'd need evidence that pilots are a special case. The only way pilots seem like a special case is that pilot is not an official title, therefore should be spelled with lowercase letters in the lead section of the articles. There's no evidence of a problem or that change is needed, meaning this proposal fails WP:CREEP. Jay32183 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand. I never said there was another name -- only that using the title Pilot (series name) is NOT supported by either WP:UCN or by WP:DAB. Find reliable sources (apart from the specialized context of DVD listings and web sites that parrot such content) which use the name "Pilot" as a proper noun and not as an adjective to refer to the shows and then there might be some basis for titling the pages as Pilot, but without such evidence there is no valid reason for using such a title. older ≠ wiser 14:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC) PS, it would be nonsensical to list all pilot television episodes at Pilot (disambiguation). NO ONE, not EVER, would type in "pilot" looking for the pilot episode of a particular tv series. older ≠ wiser 14:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I understood you completely, but you're creating a straw man. I have explicitly stated that pilot is not an official title nor a proper noun, though still a noun, not an adjective. Pilot is the only thing those episodes are ever called, that's why I said you need to look for another name. If there's another name we'll use it, but then it wouldn't be an unnamed pilot. Have you also noticed I spell pilot with a lowercase p, and it is used that way in the lead of pilot (Smallville)? The DVD listing is a perfectly reasonable place to get titles, as is a TV Guide listing. That's where all the other sources get the names. Did you miss my whole "named" and "called" are different argument, because it is very important to understanding why this proposal is nothing but instruction creep and supporting shows a disregard for the policies and guidelines you're trying to say support you. Most articles do not have proper names as titles, only things with proper names do, see dog, cat, banana, apple. None of those are proper nouns, but they are the article title because that's what the thing is called. I also never suggested listing the titles on a disambiguation page. Please only counter arguments I've actually made, especially when I've been so clear in what I'm saying. Jay32183 (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Why do you continue to suggest finding another name when that is no part of my argument? Your assertion that Pilot is the only thing those episodes are ever called is precisely what is debatable. It is properly a compound noun, "pilot episode", which through the wonderful fluidity of the English language can be understood with a truncated form in appropriate contexts. "Pilot", as a title of an article, is jarring precisely because it is not an actual name. I find the introductory sentence to pilot (Smallville) to be quite disconsonant with the title of the article. The opening sentence quite correctly uses the term as a compound noun, although the bolding rather bizarrely emphasizes only half of the compound and the title incorrectly implies that the actual name of the entity is "Pilot". Such naming fails WP:DAB precisely because no one will enter "pilot" into the search box looking for the pilot episode of a particular series. Whether you have suggested listing the names on a disambiguation page or not is irrelevant -- that is implicit -- the purpose of a disambiguation page is to list articles that would otherwise share the same name. Naming the article as Pilot (series name) indicates the article would be known as simply "pilot" and thus should be listed on the disambiguation page. Finally, the propose modification is quite simple and rather more logical than the current contrivance, so I don't see there is any basis to invoke instruction creep. older ≠ wiser 03:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • How can you claim that "Pilot is the only thing those episodes are ever called is precisely what is debatable" when you have no evidence that the pilots are called anything else? If you don't find a source calling it something else then the issue is not debatable. Again, to what part of WP:DAB do you refer? WP:DAB has nothing to do with searches, it's how to resolve conflicts with two articles that have the same title. People generally find episode articles through navigation, not searching, anyway. Making the claim that something is implicit of my argument is exactly what a strawman is, which is a logical fallacy. The proposal is completely illogical because no one ever refers to the pilot episode of a TV series by just the name of the series. There may be things that look like exceptions to this but aren't really, e.g. Aquaman (TV program) which was only the pilot episode. The title of pilot (Smallville) is completely in sync with the first sentence, especially if you've read WP:MOSBOLD. The opposite of consonant is dissonant, not disconsonant. Jay32183 (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The entire point is that the parallel structure of named titles and unnamed pilot episodes very strongly and very incorrectly implies that the name of these episodes is "Pilot". That is IMO very poor form for a general purpose reference like Wikipedia. I'd actually be OK if the proposal were to use Pilot episode (series name) which would more clearly signal that the name of the subject in the article is not "pilot". From WP:DAB: There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation. Users searching for what turns out to be an ambiguous term may not reach the article they expected. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he's looking for. Per the guidelines at WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB articles titled "Pilot (series name)" should be included on the disambiguation pages, as the title (misleadingly) indicates the articles are known as simply "pilot". It matters little what mistaken notions you might have about straw men or logical fallacies -- you are missing the point, apparently with deliberate intent. NO ONE, NOT EVER, refers to these episodes as simply "pilot" outside of specialized contexts in which the series name is obvious. They are properly described as "pilot episodes". Thanks for pointing out what the opposite of consonant is. But I'm in relatively good company in using the term. older ≠ wiser 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Comment: using the form “Series name (pilot)” for unnamed pilot episodes is much better than the opposite method, "Pilot (Series name)" - that's a confusing disambiguation of the word "Pilot" that is not what's intended and does not reflect the way readers search for the information. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
    • You already supported. Jay32183 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Oops. Struck-through duplicate and changed to "Comment" - it's been a month and a half, I thought this was a new section when I saw the new activity. Now that I've re-read the recent entries more carefully, I'll add this:
      • There does seem to be at least a rough consensus of support among the people entering comments here for the limited proposal. We should proceed with the change. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
        • There does not seem to be a consensus. Vote counting does not make a consensus, the strength of argument does. This proposal contradicts large scale policy and guidelines with illogical reasons. There can never be a consensus for that. There are simply editors who want to do something different than existing practice(not just the one we're discussing), and Wikipedia at large has not noticed. Jay32183 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Actually, it is the current practice of naming Pilot (series name) that is illogical and unsupported by either WP:UCN or WP:DAB. The modified proposal to use Series name (pilot) is a distinct improvement. older ≠ wiser 19:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
            • No it isn't, we have zero sources referring to unnamed pilots by the title of the series. It can't be the common name if no sources ever uses it. To which part of WP:DAB do you refer? Pilot is an ambiguous term and is followed by the proper parenthetical for television episodes. Treating pilots differently than other episodes doesn't make sense. A pilot is just another episode as far as an encyclopedia is concerned. Jay32183 (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
              • So what appears in the title sequences for these pilots? Every reputable source making reference to a pilot episode will also clearly identify the series name, most likely in a construction similar to in the pilot episode of series name... As has been explained many times before (to deaf ears apparently), a pilot episode is not just another episode. There is no necessary reason to foist the illusion that "pilot" is the actual title of the episode in the same way as title of a named epside. older ≠ wiser 03:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
                • No one is suggesting that pilot is an official title, and the current naming system does not suggest that. "In the pilot episode of series name..." is only used when the series isn't clear from context. If the series is clear writer simply say "in the pilot episode...". The way we make the series clear on Wikipedia is with the following parenthetical. I'm listening, you just aren't making sense. Jay32183 (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
                  • If no one is suggesting that pilot is an official title, then why should the article title imply that it is? That is what is so illogical about the current convention. If you are unable or unwilling to see that, then no amount of pseudo-listening will make any difference. older ≠ wiser 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
                    • If [[Pilot (series)]] should not be used because it wrongly suggests that pilot is an official title, then [[Pilot episode (series)]] should not be used because it wrongly suggests that pilot episode is an official title. The problem is that when there is no official title, any name we give it will wrongly imply that that name is the official title, so that cannot be used as an argument against any proposed name. So please stop wasting everyone's time with this pointless argument. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
                      • In a sense you are correct, which is why I would prefer the current proposal to use Series name (pilot episode). However, IMO, the potential for confusion is significantly less and the clarity significantly greater for the form Pilot episode (series) compared to Pilot (series). It is a valid argument, and you cannot dismiss merely by saying it is not. I'll persist with this line of argument for as long as I care to or until I am convinced otherwise. older ≠ wiser 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
                        • Sorry for the out line comment. I think that the potential for confusion is so low that no improvement could be significant. I mean, who is going to think the "Pilot" is the "official title"? Furthermore, if they do, so what? Let's keep things in perspective. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
                          • If there is a simple solution that eliminates the problem, what is the objection? Besides, by the logic of disambiguation pages, if the article titles imply that they are known as simply "Pilot", then they should be included on the Pilot disambiguation page, which would be undesirable. The term is properly a compound noun and using the compound form eliminates the issues with using the short form. older ≠ wiser 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
                            • When the solution to an insignificant problem might create a bigger problem, what's the point of pursuing that solution? The bigger problem in this case is that pilots are actually referred to as pilot, less often as pilot episode. And, I actually like the idea of having a dab page that lists all pilots for which Wikipedia has articles. What is undesirable about that? I think such a dab page would be quite useful. Besides, it could be just a category to which a hat note on the Pilot dab page links. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Great minds... --Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • (after ec) I don't see that as a bigger problem. Quite the opposite. "Pilot episode" offer greater clarity than only "pilot". No one, not ever, refers to these as simply "pilot" apart from the immediate context of the series. Because no one would type in pilot looking for the pilot episode of a particular series, it would be undesirable to pollute the pilot disambiguation page with such a list. Currently the pilot disambiguation page does link to mis-titled List of television pilots named "Pilot", which is OK (mis-titled because, as even Jay32183 has acknowledged, "Pilot" is not the actual name of these episodes). older ≠ wiser 21:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You're conflating actual name with "official title". The actual name of a pilot episode is Pilot. It might not be the "official title", but it is the term most often used to refer to it. That means that is its actual name, by definition. There is nothing wrong with inferring that Pilot is its name in the title of an article about an episode named Pilot, there is nothing wrong with referring to the List of television pilots named "Pilot", and there is nothing undesirable about linking to that list from the Pilot dab page. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, that just sounds like double-talk. How is the "actual name" of what everyone agrees is an unnamed episode "Pilot"? No, everyone does NOT refer to it as simply "Pilot". Such a reference ONLY make sense in the immediate context of the series, and further, more reputable sources would be careful to refer to it as a "pilot episode". I already said that I agree the list should be linked from the pilot disambiguation page, but the list is mis-titled. older ≠ wiser 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The only double-talk I see is the conflating of the formal "official title" with the informal "name". I don't see any agreement that the pilot episode is "unnamed". Anyway, my preference is that the title of each pilot should be determined on an individual article basis. For example, the name of the pilot for Moonlighting is, apparently, Moonlighting — The Pilot Episode, and so the article title should probably be Moonlighting — The Pilot Episode. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that Lewis Carroll summed up this dispute quite well:

“The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks’ Eyes’.”
“Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?” Alice said, trying to feel interested.
“No, you don't understand,” the Knight said, looking a little vexed. “That is what the name is called. The name really is ‘The Aged Aged Man’.”
“Then I ought to have said ‘That's what the song is called?’ ” Alice corrected herself.
“No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called ‘Ways And Means’: but that's only what it's called, you know!”
“Well, what is the song, then?” said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.
“I was coming to that,” the Knight said. “The song really is ‘A-sitting On A Gate’: and the tune's my own invention.”

My understanding is that these unnamed pilot episodes do not have "actual names", but for commercial and list-making purposes people do treat "Pilot" as if it were the name. Does that mean that the authors of DVD menus and episode guides are naming the episode? Perhaps, but it's not completely clear. I certainly don't think that the "name" used in an Amazon listing should be treated as definitive — note that the cover image for that Moonlighting DVD merely says "MOONLIGHTING (line break) THE PILOT", which could be interpreted as Moonlighting: The Pilot (a name) or Moonlighting (pilot) (a descriptor). And if we treat the cover image as a name, we have to decide about punctuation: is it Moonlighting: The Pilot or Moonlighting — The Pilot or Moonlighting, the Pilot... you see the difficulties? An employee of Amazon.com or the DVD company decided to list that DVD as "Moonlighting — The Pilot Episode", but I don't see why we should be obliged to follow suit. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Great analogy. As to why we should follow suit after Amazon, I would say, due to lack of any other citable reference. Now, if there are other citable references for what the pilot of Moonlighting is called, by all means, let's consider them. But I don't think it's right to ignore the one and only (albeit weak for the reasons you point out) reference in order to invent our own. This is only one example, but the same individual article consideration should apply to every other article about a TV pilot, just as it does to every article in WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hm... I don't know. It still seems to me that these pilot episodes don't really have names as such, and are "called" different variations on "pilot" and "pilot episode" by different sources on an ad hoc basis. (See the Lost examples I gave ages ago, in which a DVD and official episode guide use slightly different terminology to refer to the pilot episode of that series.)
Instead of considering the format Pilot (series name) as assigning the name "Pilot" to the episode, why not view it as calling the episode "pilot" or "pilot episode", not as a name, but as a descriptor? In this view, "pilot" isn't being assigned as the name of the episode, it's merely a signifier for "untitled pilot episode". Compare the various works listed under Untitled — most of those don't actually have the name "Untitled" (although some do), they're just untitled works which are called "untitled". Similarly, untitled pilot episode are called "pilot" — "pilot" isn't the name, but it's used in lieu of a name. We could just as easily use "pilot episode" or even "untitled pilot episode", but debating over that seems to me like a color of the bikeshed argument. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Semantics aside, what WP:UCN says is straightforward: "Determine the common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." I see no reason in this case to ignore what "verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject" of each article about a TV pilot. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that in the cases of these unnamed television episodes, in each case there is likely to be conflicting evidence from different verifiable reliable sources, because each source is making it up as they go along, so we may as well use an arbitrary standard. The Moonlighting example is a great example, actually: the top results from a Google search yield the Amazon example already discussed, Moonlighting, The Pilot, Moonlighting: The Pilot, Moonlighting (Pilot)... and so forth. We can have hundreds of color-of-the-bikeshed arguments about which of these is more reliable, or more official, or what it's more commonly called — or we can use an arbitrary standard. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support and agree with Jack-A-Roe.(olive (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC))
    • You already supported. Jay32183 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Supporting the idea that there is agreement among majority of editors here for the change that Jack-A- Roe outlines rather than the change itself, which you correctly note I have already supported. (To clarify).(olive (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

Arbitrary section break

While I still think that there's nothing wrong with the current usage Pilot (series name), if a change is to be made I would prefer Pilot episode (series name) to Series name (pilot episode), because it fits better with the existing episode naming standards. The current guideline fits with Wikipedia's general naming practices, but can be confusing to people not familiar with those practices. I'm concerned that if pilot episodes are named Series name (pilot episode), that would promote more confusion and lead people to start named episodes according to that pattern (as Jack-a-Roe suggested earlier, a suggestion with which I strongly disagree).

The difficulty with unnamed pilots is that they are, in fact, unnamed. When a pilot does not go to series, that's fine, because the name that would have been given to the series is given to the pilot. But when a pilot does go to series and remains unnamed, there is no common name which could be used per WP:UCN. In the context of the pilot's production, it's sometimes called by the name of the series; in the context of DVDs and episode guides, it's usually called "Pilot" — but neither of those is unarguably the "common name" of the episode. The current naming pattern uses "pilot" as a clear referent without asserting that this is the name of the episode, but if others believe that there is a name assertion, then using "pilot episode" would be acceptable. (I think that in the current usage "pilot" simply means "pilot episode", and conveys the same meaning in one word instead of two, but apparently others disagree.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, WP:UCN says "Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general." To me, that seems like an argument for using Pilot (series name) over Pilot episode (series name). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Make sense to me. What if the guideline was to use Pilot (series name) when there is no clear obvious name (from reliable sources) for that particular pilot? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In principle, I'd be OK with that — that's more or less what the current practice is. However, I'd question the application if people started interpreting this as saying that some untitled pilot episodes are called "Series Name, The Pilot" and others are called "Series Name: Pilot Episode" and others are called "Series Name Pilot" and so forth. With a few exceptions (Pilot (JAG), Pie-lette, The Pilot (Seinfeld)) I really do think that when reliable sources refer to one of these episodes as "Pilot" or "Pilot Episode" or "The Pilot" they're not really giving it a name, but just calling it that. If your intention is to interpret the proposal so that different articles about unnamed pilots would be titled in different ways, I'd weakly oppose that interpretation. (Weakly because it's a color of the bikeshed argument — it doesn't really matter that much.)
What do the people who supported changing the naming pattern think about this proposal? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
not having been looked at this at all, and never having worked on any such article, and--believe it or not--never having knowingly seen a pilot episode for a series--I was naturally asked for an opinion. I'm going to say that the naming should if possible be consistent for every episode of a series, and if we call named episode articles "episode-name (series name)", as we do, then an unnamed one should also have the series name at the end. Born2cycle's proposal just above makes sense to me. so if you want an ignorant opinion, there it is. DGG (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks DGG, the outside opinion is much appreciated. Just to explain, a television pilot is not necessarily an episode of a series, in fact a great number of pilots never get to the series point. The issue here is not the naming of episodes, but showing the type of presentation that an unnamed pilot is. If a pilot has a name, then fine, it would be "Name of Pilot (Series name)", however the "name" of an unnamed pilot is not, and never has been, "Pilot"; so "pilot" is a type and not an episode name. Thus, the pilot for The X-Files is called "The X-Files, pilot episode".[14]
As I stated above, we shouldn’t be using “Pilot” as the title for an unnamed pilot episode; we should be using “Pilot” as a type, as in The X-Files (pilot), which fits with the other types, such as The X-Files (film), The X-Files (books) and The X-Files (song).
As a matter of fact, if one looks at the actual opening of the pilot for The X-Files, the true title given in the opening sequence is indeed "The X-Files" which can also be seen in this promotion video: (at timestamp: 2:54), , which is the name the creators called it. "Pilot" is not the episode name, it is the type of show it it is. Dreadstar † 07:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
That "promotion video" is described in the info on that YouTube page as "fan-mad", which I take as a typo for "fan-made". It's hardly a source that should be used to justify anything, even less than the Amazon listing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I can assure you that fan did not "make" the screenshot I point out in that video. I'll seek an other online source - but I've actually seen the commercial that shot is in. Dreadstar † 05:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Even if a fan did not make it, that shot does nothing to indicate that the episode is being called The X-Files. I've made this point before, and you've ignored it every time, but we need to check against how the other episodes are handled. Would the equivalent shot for Deep Throat say "The X-Files"? It most likely would, since effective advertising would include the name of the series to attract an audience. The only difference you've shown compared to the other sources is that they called it "the pilot episode" rather than just "pilot". Neither are proper names, and both are equally understandable, so we should go with the simpler one. Jay32183 (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Title sequences usually include the name of the TV series, many TV series don't include episode titles in title sequences at all. As stated many times previously, it does not matter if "pilot" is an official name or not. It's whether people call it pilot or something else. The cover of the VHS said "PILOT", isn't that just as official? It was one of those sources you used to prove yourself wrong. DGG made an excellent point about looking other episodes in a series. Compare the way the pilot is discussed with the way episode 2 is discussed. There were sources said "The X-Files: Pilot" but they also said "The X-Files: Deep Throat", which on Wikipedia is Deep Throat (The X-Files). Jay32183 (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Pilot is not a title just because people use it as shorthand once the subject has been identified. By that criteria, then The X-Files (film) should actually be Film (The X-Files), since once the subject has been identified, they just call it "the film"... Pilot is a type, just like book, movie, film, comic book, video game, etc. It just is not a title, no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it. My sources do not prove me wrong, they actually prove me right. I've seen no proof that the actual title of an unnamed pilot is "Pilot". A pilot is a completely separate entity than a series, otherwise they'd call it just the first series episode and give it a name. A pilot is a type of television production. There's just no way around that. Dreadstar † 18:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Would you pay attention. Pilot is the title of the article not the episode, get that distinction through your head before you say anything else, otherwise you're wasting everyone's time, especially your own. The logic I'm using does not lead The X-Files (film) to Film (The X-Files) because The X-Files is actually the name of the film, the pilot doesn't have a name. Things that don't have names are called what they are, not something they're related to. The logic you're using suggests all dogs are named dog because the Wikipedia article is at Dog. Jay32183 (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring the obvious incivility (and make no mistake about it, your first two sentences are rude, uncivil and an assumption of bad faith), I am in total agreement with you when you say "Pilot is the title of the article not the episode". That's exactly what I've been saying all along – and you further contradict your own earlier statement that we are "pretending" it's the name of the episode. "Pilot" should not be the title of the article because it is not the title or name of the episode, it is the type of show it is. The proper title is "The X-Files, pilot episode" So we should be calling it that or, in wiki-shorthand "The X-Files (pilot episode)" following the standard naming convention that puts the type into the parenthesis, such as I've stated earlier (books) (film) (video game) (comic) (song) (etc etc). Dreadstar † 17:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no proper title for the episode, it is an untitled episode. Pilot is not its name, it's the type of thing it is. When things don't have proper names, we call them by the types of things they are. Remember that every source you found that used "The X-Files: Pilot", "The X-Files—pilot episode", or "The X-Files, the pilot episode" also wrote "The X-Files: Deep Throat", "The X-Files—Deep Throat", or "The X-Files, Deep Throat". That is completely relevant and destroys the basis of your argument, and you keep ignoring it. At this point, I do have to assume it's intentional, otherwise you would have made a comment about it after I told you to pay attention. Jay32183 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between "ignoring" something and disagreeing with that something. I'm not ignoring it, I'm disagreeing with it - and I'm saying basically the same thing I've said from the start. You, however, have changed your story several times, from "it's the name," to "it's the pretend name" to "it's not the name." We’re going around in circles, which is why I said we should just “agree to disagree,” which does not mean “I give up and you win” as you apparently interpreted it here.
Just because there is no episodic title for the pilot does not mean the pilot has no name at all. Television pilots are different from episodes, as we've gone through before. You've pointed out yourself that pilots which aren't picked up as a series are known by the series name [15], the same logic follows for what we've been referring to as "unnamed pilots", which are indeed named. The X-Files pilot is named exactly that: "The X-Files, pilot episode". Dreadstar † 00:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You have ignored the point again. I can tell because you didn't mention it at all in your response. Sources talk about the pilot episode the same way they talk about other episodes in the series. If the sources say "The X-Files: Pilot" and "The X-Files: Deep Throat" and we use Deep Throat (The X-Files) there is absolutely no argument you can come up with that makes Pilot (The X-Files) an inappropriate name unless you also argue that Deep Throat's article is incorrectly named. Pilots of a series are not different from episodes as far as encyclopedic coverage is concerned. Being produced and budgeted differently doesn't matter. Maybe pilots are more likely to have sources, but that's not a naming issue. Pilots that don't go to series are not episodes because to be an episode, there must be a series. That's why it's Aquaman (TV program), not Aquaman (TV episode). I have not been inconsistent, you don't know what pretend means. When a pilot is unnamed, meaning it has no title, we pretend the title is "pilot" for the sake of naming the article. For us to pretend something is true, it must actually be false. Unnamed pilots are unnamed. "The pilot episode of The X-Files is unnamed, therefore it is named 'The X-Files'" just doesn't make sense. Not only do you ignore my arguments, you're ignoring the way your own sources are writing. Also, if you agree to disagree that means there is no consensus, and the guideline doesn't change. Agreeing to disagree, by definition, is no consensus. I don't want to agree to disagree, because if we have no consensus you'll just keep bringing it up using the same argument again and again, which has been wrong every time. You're stonewalling to get your way. You proved your own argument wrong very early and continue to make it. Jay32183 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I addressed all your points very clearly; I think anyone reading my comments can see that. You're incorrect about what my sources say, incorrect in your belief that pilots and episodes are the same, and you're also wrong about my statement that you and I should "agree to disagree"; I made that comment specifically in reference to the seemingly irresolvable discussion between you and me, choosing to leave the matter up to consensus between all editors, which is not by definition "no consensus, I give up", it merely acquiesces to the fact that you and I cannot come to an agreement and are arguing in circles. I'll leave the last word for you in this discussion between us, because I just cannot agree that we should be "pretending" something is a title when it's not, and I find your comments uncivil, reeking of bad faith, and now bordering on personal attacks. The show clearly has a title, The X-Files, pilot episode. Period. If you think I'm gaming the system, then by all means take it up the chain.Dreadstar † 03:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You haven't addressed what I've said, only what you think I've said. A matter cannot be left up to consensus, that shows you do not understand what consensus means. Every source has shown that the pilot episode of The X-Files has no name. It has things that people call it but no name. I have not been the least bit uncivil in this discussion. You are acting in bad faith, cherry-picking your arguments on things that don't matter. There hasn't been anything close to a personal attack, I've only attacked the arguments and tactics, not you as a person. Taking that as a personal attack only leads to more bad arguments. There's no difference between pilots and other episodes because the sources aren't making such a distinction. I don't want the last word. I want you to realize you are wrong and drop your proposal. It's not a difference of opinion, you are actually wrong. Factually wrong. Your sources contradict your point, referring to the episode as "Pilot", with a capital P, pretending it is the title. Logic is simply not on your side. You cheery-picked certain parts of your sources to make it look like you were right. You basically refuse to read page two. Sources talk about "Pilot" the same way they do "Deep Throat" which means we can't distinguish between them. You're forcing original research into article titles. None of the sources used the formatting your using either. When not in an episode guide it has been "The pilot episode of The X-Files…". You still haven't identified a problem with current practice to make the proposal not instruction creep. Jay32183 (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Instruction creep is only an essay, not a guideline or policy. I've entered a further comment about this in the next section at 04:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC). Aside from that, the sources that refer to the pilot use various ways of describing it. IMDb for example calls it "The X-Files" Pilot (1993) that fits well with the limited proposal, The X-files (pilot) or The X-files (pilot episode) --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Being an essay doesn't negate the point. We don't come up with solutions for problems we don't have. The essay is an extension of WP:BUREAUCRACY. What you've just said about iMDB is part of the argument I've been making that's been being ignored. It does say "The X Files" Pilot (1993)[16], however, it also says "The X Files" Deep Throat (1993)[17]. On the episode list it says Season 1, Episode 0: Pilot [18]. You have to read the whole thing, not just a part of it. That's the point that's being ignored. Double check the other sources that were posted, you'll find the same thing. The sources do not support the limited propsal, they support the existing guideline. Jay32183 (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict: Jay your comments are definitely personal and not civil. Addressing another editor by saying, "you are acting in bad faith" when another editor is attempting to explain his position is not civil. Comments like,"you are cherry picking your arguments on things that don't matter", and "I want you to realize you are wrong and drop your proposal" are indications of WP:Own You do not decide what matters and doesn't matter to another editor in a civil and open discussion. You do not assume good faith when you accuse another editor of stonewalling to get his own way. You might reconsider your methods of discussion whatever your opinions might be on the material being discussed.(olive (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

My comments are not personal, speaking to a person and making a personal attack are nowhere near the same. My comments do not indicate WP:OWN. I don't own this guideline, but if you try to change it with faulty logic and misrepresentation of facts, I'm going to call you on it. I also stated that I can no longer assume good faith on Dreadstar's part before bringing up stonewalling. I've gotten so frustrated with this because I've pointed out logical fallacy only to be accused of incivility for being right. You're using WP:CIVIL to try to invalidate my point, because there isn't anything supporting this proposal. Jay32183 (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
We're talking about owning the discussion not the guideline. The thing is Jay, there are editors who have come to this page because they don't agree with the guideline. They didn't come for any other reason. So in discussion what they are discussing is their concern with the guideline . They aren't ignoring you, they simply have another viewpoint. They don't agree with you, and have every right to do so. Remember that. They don't agree with you. That doesn't make them or you wrong, as you seem to think it does. It just means there is a discussion going with two sides to the argument. And Jay you neither own the discussion nor the arguments about it."Logical fallacies and misrepresentations" are your view point, not truth . That said, maybe the discussion can take a more civil path.(olive (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
No we're talking about changing the guideline. Sources were found that undeniably contradict the proposal. This isn't a disagreement, we have people looking at facts and people making things up. Respond to the actual issue, and drop all the WP:CIVIL nonsense as it is not relevant to the discussion. The sources talk about the pilot and other episodes in identical fashion, how does that support this proposal? Jay32183 (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Olive sounds a trifle bossy there for which I apologize, although I meant what I said.(olive (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
No Jay. The comment on WP:Own refers to the discussion although yes, the guideline is under discussion for change. Your behaviour here is uncivil, creates a uncomfortable environment and is therefore highly relevant in regards to successful, mature discussion which is what I assume we all want. That topic can be dropped when you decide to treat other editors with respect, whether you like what they have to say or not. Saying editors are making things up, and you are not borders on the ludicrous since there is a majority of editors in agreement on this topic. Are they all making things up? In addition such a statement is tantamount to calling other editors liars. I've made my points on this topic and will wait for an agreement or disagreement from other editors. I do not support an environment that treats the editors in this discussion with a lack of respect, thus my comments. I suggest you ignore my statement in terms of responding and move forward in a positive way into this discussion(olive (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
You can discuss the actual issue or you can drop your support for the proposal. If you refuse to discuss the issue at hand then you are simply voting and Wikipedia is not a democracy, therefore your support should be disregarded. Numbers do not matter. The only way to have a mature discussion is to focus on the actual issue. Yes, all the people supporting this proposal are presenting factually incorrect information to support their opinions, and if they are doing so knowingly, they are liars. You made an invalid point, you were called on it, and instead of responding to that comment, jumped onto WP:CIVIL as a defense mechanism. It happens to be the least civil defense there is. My frustration should be completely understandable when that's the reaction I'm getting. People are taking sources out of context and refusing to accept the full context when it's pointed out. Jay32183 (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well now. These are some pretty interesting comments. Sorry Jay. You don't get to make up rules here... and I'm sure all of the editors here will be happy to know they are liars.(olive (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC))

If you refuse to discuss the actual issue, then enough has not been said. Unless of course you meant that you've said enough. I'm not making up rules. Your insistence on participating in this discussion while refusing to discuss the actual issue at hand is incredibly disruptive. This page is for discussing the naming convention. If you have no intention of discussing, stop posting here. Jay32183 (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Comments: What is being argued here is the status quo; leave it the way it is because that's the way it is. Agreement earlier among a number of editors has been tossed aside in favour of "strength of argument", here, a completely subjective criteria held by one side of the discussion.WP:Consensus goes on to note:"including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority." Although this is the away it has been, it is not logical given that Pilot as noted above cannot be a title of something. Pilot is a thing. Among other things using pilot as a title is syntactically incorrect. A group of editors has pointed this out but my feeling is that the status quo is being protected and so change even if possibly for the better is impossible. Amazon can't be a reliable source nor can "people". I can't see the logic in such arguments. If there is no reliable source, and there isn't then one has to be open to restructuring the naming patterns here to be the most logical, so our readers can actually find what they are looking for. However, it is almost impossible to argue against the protected bastion of the status quo even if the argument is for consistency and logic, and ease for the reader, all arguments offered in this discussion. Oh well, too bad. La di da.(olive (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

  • We aren't trying to preserve the status quo here. We don't want to avoid change for the sake of avoiding change. Older may not equal wiser, but newer doesn't equal better either. I think the proposed change is a bad idea. Sources were found that contradict the idea behind the proposal because people are taking tidbits of information out of context. "If I read this sentence and ignore the rest of the paragraph, I can prove my point" is not a logical argument. Have you compared the naming convention for other things that aren't names, but things. There are thousands. Jay32183 (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
No, "Pilot" is not the name of the episode. However, neither is "The X-Files" (in that case) — that's the name of the series to which the unnamed pilot episode belongs. The unnamed pilot episode could also be titled Untitled (The X-Files), on the pattern of the items listed at Untitled — but "Pilot" provides more information to the reader using the same number of words ("titles should be as simple as possible without being too general").
Users on both sides of this dispute should realize that there are logical arguments supporting both perspectives, because the subject we're discussing does not have a single, unambiguous name. In different circumstances, either "pilot" or the title of the series can be used to identify the episode — but that doesn't mean that either is the "real name". If, as I believe, the episodes have no name as such, then the naming standard we choose is completely arbitrary. I happen to believe that the current system of treating "pilot" as if it were the name is both sensible and easy for readers to use, especially if they are familiar with the naming patterns used here for other television episodes. (And, as I said a long time ago, we should encourage the creation of redirects so that if a reader does think that "The X-Files (pilot)" is more logical, he or she should get there if he types that into the search box. Redirects are cheap.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
An important point here is that there are two sides to this discussion, and opinions are like noses we all have them. Responses to opinions should be civil and not as demonstrated above. No one owns this discussion as in, "will you pay attention"...
That said. Josiah's point has an important side point to it and that is," both sensible and easy for readers to use, especially if they are familiar with the naming patterns used here for other television episodes." My argument has been and maybe others see the same problem, what is in place now may not be easy for readers who are not familiar with the naming conventions. That includes even experienced, intelligent editors as was mentioned earlier. I'm not sure I can argue thus further ....We are going around in circles without any resolution in which case the end product of the discussion defaults to what is in place now. I'm not sure how to move beyond that.(olive (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
First off, I have not been uncivil. "Will you pay attention" is an exclamation of frustration, not an insult, and it assumes good faith. The key point in my argument is being completely ignored, the bad faith assumption is that people are deliberately ignoring it because they don't have a proper response. The only way readers may be confused by the current naming convention is if the don't know what a television pilot is. That isn't a reason to change the naming convention, or even a reasonable objection to it. We are supposed to assume the readers speak English, and that they read the articles and don't just look at tiles to get information. We aren't seeing an actual problem though, people aren't complaining "I don't know what this means." We have a perceived problem and the proposal may not even solve that problem, other people could be confused by seeing a proper noun for something that has no proper name. Have you read WP:CREEP's take on situations like these? Jay32183 (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Since instruction creep has been mentioned several times, it should be noted that WP:CREEP is only an essay, not a guideline or policy. Also, the formatting proposal is not addressed by that essay anyway - the change would not add new rules, it would replace an existing convention with a modified one. That essay has no authority over the consensus in this discussion, and even if editors want to take the essay into consideration, it does not support one or the other option anyway, since both options are "naming conventions", equivalent as forms of instruction, only the details are different.
The essay has been mentioned enough and it's not helping the decision process. Let's focus on the merits of each proposal to find the consensus.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
As I stated above, being an essay does not invalidate the point. There's a listing about it on WP:ATA because that's not a valid argument. You are also ignoring the spirit of the essay and focusing on the words. We don't try to solve problems we don't have, we don't make or modify policies and guidelines just because we feel like it. The proposal has no merit. The sources found by the person proposing contradict the proposal when you remember to read the whole source. Jay32183 (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not ignoring the spirit of the essay, it makes some good points. However: (a) it is not a guideline or policy, it is simply the expression of the opinions of the people who wrote it - it may be useful in expressing a point as a sort of shorthand by mentioning the name of the essay, but it has no authority over the encyclopedia-building process; and (b) even accepting the spirit of the essay, I do not see any instruction creep in this limited proposal. The proposal does not add new instructions, it modifies an existing convention. That's not creep, it's just change. It appears that the change has more support than opposition at this point. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I mean by ignoring the spirit of the essay. You're over focusing on the word "new" when that isn't the point. Changing the rules without good reason is as much instruction creep as making a rule without good reason. You again fail to respond to the more important issue, the sources don't say what you think they do, because you aren't reading the whole thing. Jay32183 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
While it is quite evident that you are quite convinced that there is not any good reason for changing, there are more than a few people who do find the current naming convention to be misleading, which considering that there is general agreement that since there is no actual name for these episodes, whatever convention we choose to use is entirely arbitrary. Ceteris paribus, we should prefer a convention that is clearer and less misleading. older ≠ wiser 22:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention edit

There appears to be more editors supporting than opposing the limited proposal for modifying the naming convention. I've edited the naming convention to add the modification, and I've moved the article Pilot (The X-Files episode) to The X-Files (pilot episode). I won't be in the least surprised if someone reverts, but I made this change in good faith according to WP:BOLD and WP:CONSENSUS. Let the discussion continue, but a change of dynamic is needed. Either the change will be accepted or not, but there's no value in going in circles. If we can't find consensus here with the currently involved editors, let's figure out a way to get more editors to join the discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I support these changes/edits (olive (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC))
Consensus has nothing to do with numbers, Wikipedia is no a democracy. Jack-a-Roe, you're last comment relevant to this discussion was countered and you've since refused to comment on it. Claiming a consensus in such a case is entirely irresponsible. WP:CIVIL does not say "ignore people if you think they aren't being polite". Littleolive oil's support is meaningless because of his/her refusal to discuss the issue at all. We don't vote we discuss. Start discussing the relevant issue. Jay32183 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I did not claim consensus, I simply pointed out that the opposing editors are in the minority. You apparently don't feel that your points have been addressed, but that's your perspective, and plenty of people don't agree with you.
Question for Jay: When you reverted the edit I made to the main page adding the limited proposal - why did you revert the other sequence of edits I made that did not change the meaning of the text and simply improved the readability and organization of the information?
That was somewhat extreme and non-collaborative on your part. Please restore those other improvements not related to the current discussion, or explain why you disagree with them. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that we're in the minority as Wikipedia is not a democracy. I used the rollback function on Twinkle to undo your edit. It grabbed all your edits. I won't fight you on minor formatting and readability changes, just don't make them with a significant change that you're well aware has opposition. You still haven't responded to my refutation of your iMDB comment; don't tell me that's a matter of perspective. You brought it up, I responded, and you went on as if I had not responded. Jay32183 (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Your insistence that numbers don't matter is a straw man. Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement. While this is not a democracy, numbers of supports and opposes do matter and are widely used in RfCs, AfDs, RfAs and on and on; if that were not the case then one editor could endlessly stop consensus in every situation by disagreeing with every argument posted by other editors. To the person making the argument, it can seem logical and even obvious. But that does not make it a fact. Also, some issues are matters of judgment or choice. There is no source that tells us how to do this; there's never been a Wikipedia before, we are charting new territory. The editors supporting the new proposal believe that it is more clear, more consistent, more organized, less confusing and easier to to search.
Regarding your use of Rollback: Jay, you had no right to use rollback to revert my edits. WP:ROLLBACK states that the the rollback tool is only intended for "undoing edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism and nonsense". I clearly identified in the edit summaries the intent of each edit - in particular I identified the edit that was based on this discussion. It was not hidden or obscured. And the pilot naming convention was all in one new sub-section that could have been deleted without even doing any reverts at all. But you chose to use rollback and undid all of my other work, work that was not controversial and that improved the formatting and readability of the page. The rules for use of the tool are very specific, and your use of it in this situation was out-of-bounds. I ask that you restore all of my edits that you rolled back. If you don't like the results, delete or modify only the specific change(s) you do not agree with. If you decide to revert any of my other edits aside from the one regarding this proposal, then those reverts require edit summaries or talk page discussion to explain why you don't agree with that other content. Thank you. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Numbers are completely meaningless and a single user can stop changes in policy and guideline. Consensus is determined by strength of argument. You still are not responding to the important issue. The source you cited does not say what you claim it does. Respond to that. The editors in support have been demonstrably wrong at every turn, and refuse to talk about it. That is not consensus, that is bullying. The sources support the minority view point, and there isn't any evidence supporting the majority. You need to address that concern. Talk about the actual issue and not about me. I did not use a straw man. Based on you edits, either you thought consensus is determined by numbers, or you thought this was a vote with majority rule. You're wrong in either case. Jay32183 (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Jay. Do not mischaracterize my part in this discussion anymore. I have stated my position several times in the past through my comments and through my clear support of comments and proposals made by other editors, as I have with Dreadstar. I will not trot out those comments again to suit your clear attempts to WP:Own this article and discussion. Furthermore, your attempts to exclude an editor form this discussion is a clear incivility, and another attempt to Own the discussion, and is disruptive. Let me reiterate. Do not mischaracterize me again, and do not attempt to exclude me or any other editor from being part of this decision making process. Thanks.(olive (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC))
I am not misrepresenting your part in this, maybe you should look at WP:TALK. The most recent point made in support was refuted, then you refused to discuss the actual issue. Restating what you've already said is pointless, but you need to address the refutation. Not one of the sources says what the supporters think they say. There is no ownership issue; talk pages are for discussing the page with which they are associated, and you've stated that you refuse to do that. That's being intentionally disruptive. Talk about the guideline or don't talk. That's how guideline talk pages work, WP:TALK, the stay on topic bit. A point you've made was countered, you can counter the counter or admit the mistake. Those are the only logical options. What's happened here is you reacted to a counterargument by going "Hey, you're a jerk and I don't have to listen to you". You're brushing off valid points because you don't like the way I said them, and even admitting to refusing to talking about the points made. Jay32183 (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)/Archive_10&oldid=1136421558"