Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Proposal to change episode naming conventions

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There were two discrete proposals that were discussed here:
  1. broadly implementing new dab titles for episode titles, namely (episode) and ([insert series here] episode), on the basis of clarity, which is consistent with what's going on with WP:NCMUSIC, and
  2. after consideration, simplifying the proposal to only propose the dab ([insert series here] episode) for broad implementation.

Consensus was opposed to proposal 1 and no consensus on proposal 2, defaulting to the status quo naming convention. Editors agreed that, in regard to proposal 1, the benefits of (episode) were not always clear and in some cases, arguably introduced new ambiguity. Proposal 2 did not have the same participation compared to the initial proposal, but there was disagreement on whether this kind of parenthetical dab would be helpful. One the one hand, such a title would only be necessary when ambiguity actually exists (e.g. when a main character name and episode title are one in the same), and users are likely going to recognize the series title already in the title's parenthetical. On the other hand, addressing whether the subject name refers to an 1) a character, 2) an episode title, 3) a character that occurs across several TV series, 4) any number of other things (e.g. a song title in the series, a book title related to the series), would be useful to avoid confusion.

For the time being and given the nature of this discussion, I'd recommend dealing with these instances on a case-by-case basis rather than implement a broad naming convention. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd like to propose some changes to the naming conventions of television episode articles that are not WP:PRIMARYTOPICs of their name. In my view, the current practice of disambiguating articles by simply the series name seems fairly vague, and could benefit from a more concise title. I would suggest fixing this situation by modelling the practice of WP:NCMUSIC, where non-primary songs are disambiguated as "(song)" or "(Artist X song)" if there are multiple songs of the same name. For these respective situations, I suggest changing the naming guideline to recommend using "(episode)" or "(Series X episode)". With this possible addition, my intention is to make the article names for clear for readers at quick glance, which the series title alone may not do. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Poll

Please vote support or oppose under this heading.

  1. *Support: Establishes good precedent and avoids confusion. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 00:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Just the series title alone after the episode title isn't sufficient. By changing the hierarchy we get true disambiguation. See the discussion I tried to start immediately above. We should also change the guideline for characters to be "(character)", then "(Series X character)" for the same reasons. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm inclined to support, not just because it's true disambiguation and avoids confusion, but also because typing "episode" might be easier than typing a whole series name (especially a long one), and if the same was applied to characters, it would be easier to type "character" than a long series name. Some article titles would get longer (e.g. all the episodes called "Pilot"), but I would think the majority would get shorter, so it would be more helpful to editors, as well as readers. It would just mean a lot of page moves (and navbox updates). –anemoneprojectors– 15:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I wish to withdraw my support. I agree with the majority of opposers below, and I feel I didn't consider everything fully before I !voted. –anemoneprojectors– 18:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see a change from Chapter 1 (House of Cards) to Chapter 1 (episode) as an improvement.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This proposal conflicts with WP:AT. "(episode)" looks too ambiguous and conflicts with precision policy. "(Series X episode)" looks too precise and is totally bothersome. --George Ho (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support its difficult to be oppose so easily.Lucia Black (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you please explain what you mean by this. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support When we leave the disamb as "X" being the name of the show, and X may not be readily known, that creates further confusion. Take Tony's example, "House of Cards" (which I do recognize) doesn't imply what the subject matter is for disamb'ing since it's not clear what House of Cards. Adding "episode" makes the title concrete. Redirects from "title (X)" to "title (X episode)" should still be done. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose if this proposal contemplates using just (episode), because this is insufficiently clear. Support if this proposal would require all ambiguously named episodes to be titled, e.g., "Bar (Series Foo episode). bd2412 T 01:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support bringing the qualifier in line with others like "film", "TV series", "comic book", or "novel". If the reader is looking for the House of Cards episode and lands on the Chapter 1 dab, "Chapter 1 (episode)" will serve them as well as "Chapter 1 (House of Cards)" does. But I don't have any issue if the fuller version "Chapter 1 (House of Cards episode)" is always used either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely a better dab, per everything said above. STATic message me! 02:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Name (episode)". "Song" is unambiguous while "episode" is ambiguous. The use of "episode" is not limited to television. It's more important to state what it's an episode of, so you need to fully specify, i.e. "Chapter 1 (House of Cards episode)" and when it all comes down to it, "Chapter 1 (House of Cards)" is all that is needed. "Episode" is unnecessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm really not sure I understand the full implications of the proposal, but I don't think Foo (episode) is an improvement over Foo (name of series). older ≠ wiser 14:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Title (episode) is not an improvement in my eyes. It's too ambiguous as pointed out by George Ho and AussieLegend. And I don't think Title (name of series episode) is necessary either, because readers will know it is an episode for the given show as soon as they hit the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per many of the above arguments. Don't think "(episode)" makes anything clearer to the reader than "(name of show)." No one has rebutted Tony's point about "Chapter 1 (episode)" sufficiently. Unneeded change that is problematic. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Also, shouldn't your proposal be for "(TV episode)"? It's not like LOST is named "Lost (series)." Either way, change doesn't improve clarity. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One of the general rules of disambiguation, is that the title should be "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". Therefore, "Title (Name of series)" is sufficient, and "Title (Name of series episode)" is unnecessary and redundant. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AussieLegend. This would entail a great deal of work for little benefit, and probably a good deal of obfuscation. --BDD (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • support The current rules where the unqualified name is used as the title is unrealistic. the purpose of article titles is to help people identify what they are looking for, and if they are looking for a television episode, the title is less confusing if it indicate this explicitly without waiting for a conflict. It is time to modify our disam practice in this regard. It is not a good argument to simply refer to our general disam guidelines--the question is whether it is a useful guideline in these particular cases. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are for use, not exercises in logic. DGG ( talk )
  • Oppose I don't like the music guideline this one is based on to begin with, because it is too narrow. It makes for a system that is often wrong. We'll end up with one of those situations where you need to WP:IGNORE constantly, but a bunch of editors will revert because they believe in their guideline more than the ignore policy. Dovid (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I simply just don't see it as an improvement. Miyagawa (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This would be a change that would affect thousands of articles for little perceived benefit. I don't think the clarity you're seeking will result and changing over all of these titles and related links would consume a lot of Editor time for an iffy payoff.
In general, I'm against changes affecting a large number of articles that hasn't been tested on a small number first. The potential results are speculative but the potential cost of hours of labor is quite real. Liz Read! Talk! 12:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I would welcome the titles of television articles being tightened for the sake of consistency, for basically the reason that I have given above: they're not intuitive for uninformed readers. An uninformed reader isn't going to whether Dave (Lost) refers to a character named Dave from Lost, or a episode of Lost called "Dave". What about Jacob (Lost) – is that a character or an episode? What about Naomi (Skins)? Does that link to the character or the episode? What about Pandora (Skins)? Adding "episode" or "character" to the parentheses would remove this ambiguity. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Question: So do you think Dave (episode) is more readily intelligible than Dave (Lost)? older ≠ wiser 15:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Dave (Lost episode) and Jacob (Lost character) would be my preferences, personally. They seem like they'd be a sufficient compromise between intuitiveness and conciseness. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
        • But that is not what the proposal is suggesting. Per the proposal, the titles would not include the series title unless there were other episodes or characters or whatever of the same name and type that required disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 17:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Hmm, it would seem that perhaps my support really lies with the modified proposal below. I'll move it now. Thanks. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per explanation of User:Bkonrad. Article titles should be as unambigious as possible. I do not know what House of Cards is and if someone had linked it in an article, i'd be rather confused, especially furthermore if it was an episode title from the series. I'm in favor of the fully extended title, an example being the existing article To Sirloin with Love be renamed to To Sirloin with Love (King of the Hill Episode). We are currently not equally applying the same treatment to all articles, which should be changed for the better of the project. LTC b2412 Troops Talk RFC Inbox 00:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Can we notify the relevant WikiProjects about this discussion? It would obviously have impact on many articles. –anemoneprojectors– 15:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a message to WikiProject Television and WikiProject Fictional characters. Not sure which others might be affected. –anemoneprojectors– 11:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Also notified WT:article titles. --George Ho (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't do a lot of episodes, but if I understand you correctly my three effected articles would endure the following moves:

  1. Chapter 1 (House of Cards) -> Chapter 1 (episode)
  2. Pilot (The Cosby Show) -> Pilot (The Cosby Show episode)
  3. Pilot (Devious Maids) -> Pilot (Devious Maids episode)
I don't see that this makes things clearer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I would almost skip the "(episode)" point, because "episode of what?" However, to add episode to a show name establishes that the article is about a television episode, in the case where the TV show name is not obvious. Maybe something like "The Cosby Show", but when you get into more obscure series or even those with short common names like "House" or "Lost", it may not be clear what the item is from title alone if you're not familiar with the work. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


Modified proposal

"When TV episdes need to be disambiguated, they should use the form "Episode name (TV series name episode)"."

This completely removes the ambiguity - not only in naming but the naming of the show, or what show the episode belongs to. This is a simplification of the above, but drops the "(episode)" option which is pointed out to be of some confusion still. --MASEM (t) 02:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Support, per nominator. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These proposals are looking to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Having a television show name in brackets is not problematic for Wikipedia readers, who will know they are reading about a television episode. Do we have to rename "John Locke (Lost)" as "John Locke (Lost character)" as well? Unnnecessary disambiguation. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Probably, yes. Though arguably individual characters have more recognizition outside of the series than episodes, and that it should have started with "John Locke (character)" if that was the only character named that, and moving to "John Locke (Lost character)" if there were more than that. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seems like a lot of unnecessary effort for no end result--any page not sufficiently disambiguated should be handled individually, and the overwhelming majority of television episodes are already in an unambiguous location. GRAPPLE X 21:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedical. Article titles should be no longer than they need to be, and no benefit from this change is apparent. It's only necessary when there is ambiguity, i.e. a character and episode of the same series share a name. I believe there are examples of this, but I can't think of any offhand. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (copied from above) I would welcome the titles of television articles being tightened for the sake of consistency, for basically the reason that I have given above: they're not intuitive for uninformed readers. An uninformed reader isn't going to whether Dave (Lost) refers to a character named Dave from Lost, or a episode of Lost called "Dave". What about Jacob (Lost) – is that a character or an episode? What about Naomi (Skins)? Does that link to the character or the episode? What about Pandora (Skins)? Adding "episode" or "character" to the parentheses would remove this ambiguity. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. (As copied from above opposal) Article titles should be as unambigious as possible. I do not know what House of Cards is and if someone had linked it in an article, i'd be rather confused, especially furthermore if it was an episode title from the series. I'm in favor of the fully extended title, an example being the existing article To Sirloin with Love be renamed to To Sirloin with Love (King of the Hill Episode). We are currently not equally applying the same treatment to all articles, which should be changed for the better of the project. LTC b2412 Troops Talk RFC Inbox 00:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree wholeheartedly with the statement "These proposals are looking to solve a problem that doesn't exist." This is situation where appropriate dismabiguation should be examined on a case by case basis. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for true disambiguation. Renaming Pilot (Lost) to Pilot (Lost episode) shows that it is an episode of TV show rather than the character that was flying the plane (or, indeed, a pilot that is simply lost), which would then be Pilot (Lost character). --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Although the examples that A Thousand Doors gives above are better than mine! --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
We're not talking about mandatory disambiguation, just using "episode" or "character" after the show name when we do disambiguate. And although it was seven years ago, this seems to have had support back in 2006. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
There isn't a great deal of difference, in practice, between mandating disambiguation and mandating longer than necessary disambiguation. Both are contrary to WP:AT. Most episodes can be titled unambiguously with their show name. Where a conflict exists, such as a character from that show with the same name, then (and only then) should we resort to lengthier disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd disagree. The fact is that with a lot of these episode titles, the resulting "disambiguation" gives us something that is ambiguous. What does Pilot (Lost) mean? It isn't self-evident that it even has anything to do with television. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
And the Naomi (Skins) example definitely needs addressing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd say the Naomi issue is settled exactly as it should be, although Naomi (Skins episode) and Naomi (Skins character) might be appropriate if her surname were rarely used. And I really don't see the problem with Pilot (Lost). If we seriously think there's potential confusion, we could include a hatnote to Frank Lapidus, a character who was a pilot. Seth Norris, the pilot in the pilot, doesn't have an article but we could also link to List of Lost characters. Speaking of which, the same silly arguments about Pilot (Lost) could apply to that title as well. Is it just a list of characters who are lost? No. Capitalization matters. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
It's probably going to be closed as no consensus pretty soon anyway, so I'm not sure why I'm still banging away! I know it's not the same, but take a film for example. Our first stage of disambiguation is to call it a "film". This unambiguously places it as a film. Then we disambiguate with a year, if further disambiguation is necessary. To only use the title of the series, to me anyway, seems akin to suggesting that The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) and The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) are suitably disambiguated. We need to show that these are unambiguously episodes, characters, whatever, if we are to disambiguate properly. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
And... Thinking about Chapter 1 (House of Cards) vs Chapter 1 (Soul Assassins album). Again, Chapter 1 (Soul Assassins) would not be suitable disambiguation. We need to establish what these are before we qualify more specifically. The point of disambiguation is to be unambiguous. For a lot of these, especially the less well known TV series, or the ones with more common names, just using the show title leaves the reader guessing what the article might be about. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Just one more thing: We have Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) (for the character) and Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode), which clearly isn't sufficient. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The Angel case is interesting. What about characters with the same name as their respective shows? Angel (Angel) is strange, to say the least, but I'm not sure if Angel (Angel character) is much better (and in this case, there isn't an Angel episode called "Angel"). Whew. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I know characters is a slightly different situation, but related to this discussion, but I'm inclined to a hierarchy of "character", then "TV show character" or "franchise character" if necessary, to allow for cross-media, different series, etc for the same character. In this case, as Angel (character) is used elsewhere, it should be Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer character) or Angel (Angel character). However, as he is part of the wider "Buffy" franchise, the former is probably more suitable. Angel (Buffyverse character) anyone? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about proposing Angel (Buffyverse) at RM, but I found no other articles that used that disambiguator. Anointed One (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) did, and apparently that used to be a standard for Buffy articles, but it's clearly incorrect now since that character was only in Buffy. I've moved it. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I will be closing this 30+ day discussion in the next few hours based on a request at WP:ANRFC. Please make any additional comments soon. I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Question the above discussion on particular exceptions seems productive and not finished; would it be helpful for anyone if I refactored this section (starting with Wikipedical's Just a comment to a new section), so I can close the above? I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if it's going to achieve anything. I think the newest comments were just a reaction to you announcing that you were planning to close the discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TV or television?

Someone believes that Buddy (TV series) should be Buddy (television series) and that TV should become television in other articles. What if we can use either one without being forced to choose one? Anybody has a comment? --George Ho (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Miniseries naming convention

RESOLVED
There is consensus that the disambiguator for a TV miniseries should be (miniseries) except in rare occurrences when more detail is required. (non-admin closure) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion started in January 2013, but was soon after archived, and the discussion never closed. The purpose of this discussion is to determine if Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Episodic television should be rewritten to state that "(TV miniseries)" or "(miniseries)" should be the standard for disambiguators in TV miniseries articles that require disambiguation in their titles. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion from January 2013

So, understanding that "TV miniseries" is redundant to just "miniseries" and only knowing WP:PRECISION and not WP:NC-TV, I just moved... something like a hundred-some articles ending with "(TV miniseries)" (or some variant thereof) to "(miniseries)". I stopped once I tried to move Lonesome Dove (TV miniseries) and saw that there was a specific convention in place, but... could we re-examine that?

Looking over the couple lines on this from prior discussion in 2004 and 2006, it was stated that "TV miniseries" should be used because the term "miniseries" is also used in radio and comic books, but from what I've seen in practice, "miniseries" alone implies television, just as "film" alone implies cinema. The article on Miniseries begins "A miniseries (also mini-series) is a television show...", and then briefly mentions the term's use in comics under a "Main article" hatnote for the more commonly used phrase, "limited series" (and does not mention the term "miniseries" being used in radio at all). In titles where the term "miniseries" does not refer to TV, the medium can be denoted (eg "radio miniseries"), just as "TV film" is used for television film.

I think the underlying logic does make sense for "miniseries"' counterpart "TV serial", since "serial" alone really is equally likely to denote a radio, television, or film serial, but "miniseries" is not media-ambiguous. --STUART (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Miniseries can also be used for, as you and the article say, a comic book series. If we're going to disambiuguate, we should be precise. Any other disambiguation we use related to a TV show should use "TV" in the disambiguator in the same way that any film will have "film" in the disambiguator - I even think that "talk show" should be "TV talk show", as you can also have radio talk shows, etc. Say you did have two miniseries with the same name, a TV one and a radio one. Radio should be on equal footing with TV in this case. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
From WP:PRECISION: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." Like "talk show", "miniseries" is precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope for every article I've seen (ignoring other factors like year distinctions), and in the rare scenario like the one you mentioned, where there are separate articles for a radio talk show and a TV talk show, in that case you would use the additional precision in the title. --STUART (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd disagree. A TV talk show is a specific thing - as is a radio talk show. To say "talk show" doesn't necessarily imply one thing or the other in my view. As you quote, WP:PRECISION states "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article", but saying "talk show" or "miniseries" is ambiguous. I've popped a note on the project page for more input. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The way I see it, by WP:PRECISION, "(talk show)" doesn't need to imply anything one way or the other - if there's only one talk show with the named title, that's the one the article's about, just like how if there's only one film, that's what the article ending in "(film)" refers to. Does that mean there are multiple uses of "(talk show)" that are referring to talk shows of different media? Yes, but I don't think that's an issue in the scope of what disambig is designed for (it's not like the distinction between "(filmmaking)" and "(film)"). Additional precision is for clarifying within one name, not all names. (That's why episode disambiguations just use the name of the series, and not "("+the name of the series +" episode)" - you don't need to know it's the episode if the episode's the only thing the name can refer to in the context of that series.) --STUART (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we're at odds with our interpretation of "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". To my mind, any article relating to a television show that needs disambiguation should automatically make reference to the fact that it is, first, foremost and unambiguously a TV article, then additional disambiguator as necessary, just as any film article needing disambiguation will automatically have the disambiguator film in it. Let's see what the others think :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's annoying how "film" gets to be a base noun that can have whatever adjectives piled onto it, but "TV" has to be an adjective with a bunch of finicky, fuzzy noun-determination guidelines that are frequently redundant. Kind of makes me wish the base could just be "show"... --STUART (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the term "miniseries" is primarily used in reference to television. In comics, the term "limited series" is more commonly used, but neither of them is used as disambiguation for comics. Per WP:NCC, any title that had more than one article between media types, would use "comics" as the disambiguation and become more specific from there. The word "series" when indicating publications can be vague and confusing and thus would not be used. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Use (TV miniseries) disambiguator as standard, making it consistent with the naming standards that have resulted in disambiguators such as "(TV series)" and "(TV film)". Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Miniseries is sufficient until such a concept begins appearing in media than television. WP:CONCISE suggests brevity is superior until further precision is necessary. Its not necessary. Trackinfo (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I would agree with Trackinfo that miniseries is just fine, as TV miniseries is redundant by definition. It's not particularly confusing, just as "(season x)" is appropriate for season articles instead of (TV season x) or "The Wire (episode)" is suitable for the television episode, as "episode" is as common TV terminology as "miniseries." -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I also agree that miniseries is sufficient disambiguation, and that TV miniseries is redundant and unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When is a (TV) film not a film?

This guideline says TV films should be titled (TV film) if they need disambiguation, and (YYYY TV film) if they need disambiguating against other films by the same name. But is a TV film not a film? Is WP:NCF insufficient for these situations? For example, if we have an article on a TV film named Foo but not a theatrical film with the same name, isn't Foo (film) the best title for that article? And if we have a 1999 TV film named Foo and a 2012 theatrical film named Foo, isn't Foo (1999 film) the better title? Unless further disambiguation is necessary—i.e., multiple films of the same name from the same year—why even bring "TV" into the title? --BDD (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Pinging Fortdj33, who brought my attention to the situation. According to him, NCF has been applied to TV films in the past. If this is so, we should update NCTV accordingly. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks BDD, and I think that this pertains to the disambiguation of titles in general. So as I've stated elsewhere, including the discussion above regarding episode naming conventions, the general rule of disambiguation is that the title should be "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". Therefore, if there are no other films with that same title, the disambiguation "TV" film is unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • There doesn't seem to be much interest here, but ping me if discussion starts up and I'll be back. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
BDD, I'm sorry there is so little interest in the problem you have raised. This is actually a major issue which has concerned me for some years. We have portals and categories for film and television which means that there needs to be a formally separate distinction between them. For example Category:1976 films can include theatrical feature films like Taxi Driver and films made for television which have only ever been shown on the small screen, In the UK, they might even include classic stage plays made on videotape, with a multi-camera set-up, which are closer to theatre in feel than film.
Despite the inappropriateness, "TV film" seems to be common usage in the United States for programming made in this way, and it is doubtless too late to challenge it. But it is surely unhelpful to include taped programmes, which will never be shown theatrically, with cinema films which will were shown in thousands of cinemas, or in US terms, theatres. Unfortunately, the term "TV movie" is used in vastly inappropriate ways on IMDb, so that even major events like general elections (I'm English) have been described in such a way.
Obviously, on Wikipedia, moving image material not made in English-speaking countries follows American usage, but the differences in usage between the US and the UK-made TV is often not always followed. It is a requirement that usage here follows the usage in the English speaking country concerned. One point to note is that primetime drama was made on tape in the UK for years after the transition to the film medium for drama in the States. Another factor is that electronically made programmes, which went out live unrecorded (or were recorded and are lost) are routinely described as being a "TV movie". What would be described as TV film/movie in the United States were more usually described as a television play, or a 'single drama', in the UK.
This problem, the lack of a distinction between TV drama (and other TV genres) and cinema films, also extends to lists of films made in a particular country or time period. The problem extends too, as to whether the infobox for television or film is used as usage of the wrong template seems to cause an inappropriate change (often by bots) at a later date.
Television play is an obsolete term now, so much of what I outline above does not apply to 'modern' British television. The cut off point is rather difficult to decide. Obviously, the 'Film on Four' seasons on the UK's Channel 4 from November 1982 onwards are best described as Films, many of them were theatrically released, but the BBC's Play for Today series continued for almost another 2 years. I should add that a distinction between 'plays' and 'screenplays' might also be made in the text of articles and the subject's credits. Philip Cross (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC for web/internet/streaming series naming conventions

Closing per AN request. Two people participating isn't enough to form a real consensus for guideline purposes, but I note that Gonnym's summary, at the end, is not disagreed with by anybody.  Sandstein  16:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An increasing number of these type of online series articles with an unambiguous title seem to be using the disambiguating term "TV series" or a variant thereof. Examples include Daredevil (TV series), Richie Rich (2015 TV series), and Marco Polo (TV series). But I've also seen Backpackers (web series) and Viral (web series). Correct me if I'm wrong, but a show streaming from Netflix does not air on TV so therefore it's not a "television" show? I'm proposing a universal disambiguator for these articles, like "(web series)", "(online series)" or "(streaming series)". Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment Netflix shows do air on TV (at least in some countries, including where I'm from). However, I'm still thinking about this and not voicing an opinion as of yet, but I do agree that one method should be decided upon (other disambiguation examples: Kirill (online drama) and Crash Course (YouTube), Northern Exposure (video blog), Real Time (Doctor Who), Carmilla (series), Do Not Track (documentary), 2020 (mini-series), The Trews (Russell Brand), Equals Three (show). --Gonnym (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but most likely in countries where Netflix (or other online streaming sites) are not available due to licensing rights and what not. I suppose it would be best to base it from the originating platform in the country of origin. I would believe that "(online series)" applies to all of these shows, since "(web series)" implies the show can only be viewed via browser on a PC but Netflix is available on a variety of devices. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
"(online series)" does sound better than web series. I'd like to make sure we are covering all possible internet-show-related scenarios:
Also related to this issue:
  • A scripted show being originally shown on a mobile platform ("mobisodes"): An example of a show: Lost: Missing Pieces
  • A scripted show being originally shown on a gaming platform such as PlayStation Network: An example of a show: Powers (U.S. TV series)

I know some of the examples I gave do not have a disambiguation, but they represent a class of shows that are available. Seeing as how the current guideline covers various options, I wanted to make sure if this happens, it too covers all web/streaming/internet related options. If I missed anything, please free to add them. --Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I think series continued online should just remain disambiguated by "(TV series)"
Crash Course (YouTube) isn't a series so I suppose that it and similar should rather belong at "(YouTube channel)", "(online channel)", or "(channel)".
Badgers (animation) is not exactly an online series, but just an animation.
Reading Webcast is just confusing to me since Web television and Web series all seem to be talking about the same thing, where Streaming media is the parent article. The Doctor Who webcast is an online series.
A video blog could qualify as an online series.
2020 (mini-series) might as well be at 2020: The Series, since it is referred to by that title several times in the article. I think it still qualifies as a mini-series, since they only intended to make those nine episodes. But then again, the article for miniseries says it only considers these type of series airing on television as "mini series". Which is it now lol
Lost: Missing Pieces seems to be an online series as well, released for Verizon users and later on abc.com
Shows from PSN are still online, technically.
--Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 17:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding "mobisodes", in the specific case of Lost, it was originally aired for Verizon users only. Are you saying that in this context, mobile is regardless an online platform (more mobile examples here Category:Mobile telephone video series)? If that is what you are saying, then I think I can agree with that. Which means, web, mobile and streaming and gaming platforms are all "online".
  • Regarding an online channel, such as in YouTube (not YouTube itself). I think that if we are adding the word "(online)" when disambiguation is needed for a show, then we should also add the word for a channel, thus "(online channel)"
  • Regarding miniseries, if there can be an "online miniseries", the naming convention for television miniseries would need to be changed to "TV miniseries" to reflect this. Reading up on the definition of miniseries it would seem that is a show that "tells a story in a predetermined number of episodes.". Question is, if this also works for web shows (which I think it should). Another example, How to Talk Australians which says its an online miniseries in the lead.
  • Regarding the usage of "Flash", if I'm not mistaken, we don't disambiguate animation by how it was done, as in there is no TV SHOW (CGI series). So if we are using only "(animated TV series)" then for online (including flash), it would be "(animated online series)".
  • For talk-shows or game-shows needing a disambiguation (in consistency with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Non-episodic television, it would be "(online talk show)" and "(online game show)".
The only two scenarios I'm not quite sure about are video blogs (its non-scripted and is closer to a talk-show format than a drama series format) and short web animations (while Badgers (animation) is not too complex, its still a "short animation" released "online", so "animation" should not be how we disambiguate it). I do hope we get more people giving input on this. Did you notify other places besides WP:TV like Internet Culture? --Gonnym (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that Verizon users had to use the internet to access these episodes, yes.
Yes, online channel makes the most sense here.
Hmm, just wondering about these mini series.. Why are they using the dab "(mini series)" if they are technically still airing on TV as multiple episodes, like regular "TV series"? Shouldn't it still just be at "(TV series)"? I mean, they are still series airing on TV. Like, all TV mini series are still TV series, but not all TV series are TV mini series. So...I'd think the only time "(mini series)" or "(TV mini series)" should be used is when there's a need to distinguish between a full series, right?
Yes, yes and going to do that now. But is there really a need to indicate an "animation" as being online?
--Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so to summarize the results of this discussion:
Episodic online shows:
  • When disambiguation is required, use (online series). This includes any online platform: streaming service (such as Netflix), streaming platform (such as YouTube), gaming platform (such as PlayStation Network) and mobile platform (any mobisode).
Non-episodic online shows
  • For non-episodic television, use the following when the name conflicts with other uses, rather than "online series":
Additional disambiguation
  • Use the following when there are two or more television productions of the same name.
  • Prefix the year of release or series debut – (2015 online series)
  • Prefix the network identification – (Netflix online series)
  • Online channels (such as YouTube channels) use (online channel)
The issue with miniseries is this. They are not "normal" tv shows, but rather a show with a small amount of episode that tell the story (like Band of Brothers (miniseries). Its a type of production on its one and not the same as regular tv shows. Why we disambiguate them? That was a decision made not by me but one that I'm not too against. In any way, in order to comply with the current television naming conventions, we would have to have it for online uses also and have it as (online miniseries).
For animation we would have to indicate it as being online, when we have two online shows with the same name as currently Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Additional disambiguation has animation disambiguated when needed as "(animated TV series)". Seeing as we are already taking care of regular shows, miniseries, game shows, talk shows and channels, animation should be treated the same and be something like "online animation" (which could deal with animation series and single animation clips).
So only question left is video blogs, which could be one of these: (online video blog), or merged into (online talk show), or put into a general (online program) (similar to "(TV program)" or "(TV programme)") which could include other programs which don't go into one of the previous entries (like news shows). --Gonnym (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC changes implemented in the MOS

@Raykyogrou0 and Gonnym: I saw Raykyogrou0 that you updated the MOS to reflect this. Before anyone moves any articles, I just wanted to make you both aware of of Web television, Web series and List of Web television series. Should either of these be changed to "Online X", given these articles will apply to this project and you've determined "online" should be used over "web"? Only saying, because I was about to move Jessica Jones (TV series) and in the lead we link to web television, and that wording would conflict with the page's disambiguation (and I don't feel we should be piping these links). Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Web television and Web series were proposed to be merged (although no one bothered to start a discussion) and I wouldn't oppose to the resulting article be at Online series. "Web" generally refers to internet content accessed through browsers and these series have spread to be accessible through apps and what not, so the term "online series" applies to all these series collectively.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your reasoning, I just wanted you aware of these three articles (at least) which may require moves, based on what you determined here. I'd be happy to help move or merge content. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hiya. I didn't participate in the above discussion (it looks like only two users did), but the proposed section at the moment seems a bit incomplete. To me House of Cards is a television series as much as Beasts of No Nation is a film, despite the original online platform. Yes, it's first broadcast over the internet, but it's not like we have "(broadcast series)" or "(cable series)" as disambiguators. House of Cards is eligible for the Emmys, just as Beasts of No Nation is eligible for the Oscars – and we don't use "(online film)". What about Arrested Development or other "TV series" that move to the internet? Further, "online series" is not commonly used terminology – I think "TV series" is definitely more accepted right now as default to describe these series. I agree that this can and probably will change over time, and I think we should continue this discussion further (maybe inviting WP:TV to gain a broader consensus) before enacting major naming convention changes. (Note: I used the phrase "objecting" in my edit summary not because I'm against adding something like this soon but just so we can gain a broader consensus first) -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I welcome the continued disscussion. Calling a show a "Television show" when its actually never aired originally on television is just wrong. If the disambiguation for any show was just "Show" as in "House of Cards (show)" then I'd agree that we don't need a special one for online stuff. However, given that this is not the case here and we do say its a television show, we will need to call by another name a show which isn't a television show. While "online series" is not (as you say, I'd disagree) a commonly used terminology, the other options as the above discussion has tried to prove, are each lacking. Online series encompasses all of the available different types of online content (currently) produced - internet, streaming (Netflix), PlayStation, mobile episodes and others. Regarding not using "broadcast" or "cable" - both of those types are a sub-type of television. Online is not. Regarding Arrested Development, we addressed that issue above as well, and said that we go by the original broadcast, which for that show would be television. The specific season article should say its an online season though. --Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Technically, House of Cards is also a film (a series of still pictures), just in serial format. Or rather, a series of short films. The problem rather lies with the term "television" or "TV", which most commonly refers to the appliance or the shows we watch on it. Perhaps people have come to associate "television" with any type of film that is not shown on the big screen, regardless of the format in which it is distributed. You see, using "TV series" to disambiguate is misleading and implies that it is a show broadcast on the television. You could also use the commonly used and actually more accurate terms "show" or "series" as disambiguators alone, which can apply to all these types. However, those terms alone are ambiguous and "online series" isn't. Ps. As I said above, it would be better if shows originally airing on TV and then later being continued online should remain by "TV series" since that is the format they were distributed by originally. Pss. I did request participators on WP:TV--two months ago. But there's no hurt in trying again.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 21:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I think Raykyogrou has a point regarding the problem being in "television" or "TV": it can mean the appliance, all medium created in a serial, procedural or reality format, or shows that are delivered to audiences only through satellite, cable or antenna. So I think we should start there (and I feel like the TV project should help determine this) is "What does the TV disambiguation mean to you?" Does it mean all media created in a serial or procedural format (or reality), regardless of how it is delivered to the viewer (so TV series disambig is enough)? Or, does it mean that this series has been delivered to the viewer by satellite, cable or antenna (so online series would be necessary)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
We should remember there are two main audiences in Wikipedia - us editors and regular readers. I would really doubt that regular readers would understand at a glance from the article title the subtle nuances of what (TV show) means on Wikipedia. At the end of the day, if someone is looking for a show like Powers (U.S. TV series) and knows its an online series, having to guess which entry it is in Powers by having to read the additional text (and even even less viable when looking at the search bar results) makes the disambiguation unclear (making things clear is the definition of disambiguation). --Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad we all agree there are nuances to work out, and I readily admit we do need to have this discussion. Obviously TV and film are visual media and the distinctions made usually come down to length and how they are shown. On the one hand there are clear differences between a show like House of Cards and Mad Men, online vs. cable, all at once vs. weekly. But at the same time, right now the general public doesn't really make a huge distinction between the two. Shows like House of Cards are still reviewed in the "Television" section of newspapers/publications and are up for major television awards- I would say that counts. Sure, the platform matters. But to me, streaming seems to be a new way to watch television, not an entirely new thing. And there are also the gray areas to discuss further- many shows now premiere on streaming services before/during their TV runs. If a series is both on TV/streaming, does that make them online series? TV series? It's just murky, and that's why I'd love to read how other WikiProject Television (hah) and other editors react to our questions. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Its hard to see the main issue when you are dealing with mainstream TV shows like House of Cards which also are (later) rebroadcast on traditional TV. What happens when you'll need (and you do) to disambiguate a show that is only on YouTube, or a show only on a dedicated website for that show. Those shows are very clearly "online" only, and calling them "TV" misrepresents what they are to the reader. Now if you go down this path and do give them an online disambiguation, then not doing so for the mainstream online shows makes no sense at all. Regarding awards, going by awards is a wrong path to take, each award show has its own reasons for including or not including a given category. However, if you do want to have a look, the Webby awards does have categories for drama and comedy long form shows (http://www.webbyawards.com/winners/2015/online-film-video/general-film-categories/drama-long-form-or-series/). Regarding your grey areas scenarios, we should either go by the starting platform (TV or online) or by the current one. --Gonnym (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Most of the primetime TV shows are later also released via online platforms and vice versa. Series like Doctor Who are also aired in the US and other parts of the world. Which is why disambiguation should be based on its origin.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Would we just be shooting ourselves in the foots if we did the following: series like House of Cards, Daredevil etc. get (online TV series), while shows that originate on say YouTube get (online series)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
But why would Daredevil be an online TV series? For me, both terms, "online" and "TV" are not supplementary to each other but opposite in essence. From the technical point - online shows are not regulated by television laws, don't go by ratings, a lot of times gets released all at once and all over the world (or at least in multiple places) at the same time, has no commercials and has its first run only on that platform. Some TV shows have some of these features (mostly cable shows like on HBO), but not all of these ones. Its second (and later) runs don't mean a lot. Friends is not a "Syndicated TV comedy", even-though it has more on-air time as a syndicated show than a regular show. --Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously there are differences, but calling these shows "opposites" is obviously hyperbolic and wrong. Online shows absolutely follow television laws, as they're episodic in nature, production is no different, and of course exist along with ratings/viewership. The difference we're debating is release and distribution, which is at this time is very murky. Based on what you're saying is NBC's Aquarius a "TV" show or an "online" show, since it was released all at once as it premiered on the internet but also airs weekly? Is Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt not a television show since it finished one season of production as one but then was distributed online? Outright rejecting the overlap here and calling Netflix/Amazon shows completely different animals from television is not a way forward, since at this present 2015 moment they are more similar than different. Short YouTube and Vimeo series are where "web series" and "online series" make most sense to me. I'm also working to figure out a more objective way to classify the differences here (and why I hope we can bring more editors into this conversation), but at the present time "TV series" still makes most sense. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't more clear, by saying "television laws" I meant actual government-type laws. Since they aren't aired on any law-enforced place Netflix can, if they want, basically show whatever they want at any hour of the day and even without placing a disclaimer. Regarding your two examples (my answers are based on their Wikipedia article as I don't know either show), Aquarius premiered its first episode on NBC and after that released all of the episodes online and continued to air weekly. This, while seeming to be a hybrid of both, is still a regular TV show (linking to my examples of the differences between online and TV). Also, if we continue going by the "first aired" answer, since it was first aired on NBC, its a TV show (same as you wouldn't call a UK show airing its first episode first on UK but later all episodes on US a US TV show). Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt while being more traditional in making than other online shows (probably since it was originally intended to be on TV) should be called an online show. On a side note, if it gets a second season, it would be very interesting from an academic view point to examine the differences (if any) between the first and season season. --Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Shows like Daredevil can't be disambiguated by (online TV series), since "online" and "TV" are conflicting terms. It would be preferable if a more universal term like "show" or "series" can be used as the disambiguator, but those terms are quite ambiguous. The line may be blurry when it comes to Aquarius but consensus could be obtained for the odd ones like this. Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt on the other hand, is clearly an online series.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The online vs TV distinction is still *very* fuzzy out in the world, and the terminology has not solidified. We shouldn't be going ahead with (online series) or similar, because that's not how these shows are broadly described. Most sources consider online shows as TV in the same way they talk about broadcast TV series. This is an emerging distinction without a clear direction, so my suggestion for now is to wait for the industry and the popular culture to settle on how to describe these. Until then, it is well within the existing guidelines to use the form (Netflix series) in a similar way we do for shows that originate on multiple networks. Honestly, I think that looks really clean way to do it, it makes the subject crystal-clear to the average web search, and won't pigeon-hole us. -- Netoholic @ 09:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation of List of TV series episodes

There doesn't seem to be any specific guidance in this article that supports putting the parenthetical disambiguator for ambiguously named TV series before or after "episodes" in a list of episodes article. Common usage appears to be "List of TV Series (disambiguator) episodes" but WP:NCDAB and Help:Pipe trick seem to require the form "List of TV Series episodes (disambiguator)". This issue has come up at Talk:Scream Queens (2015 TV series)#Episode list article. Also effects List of Scream Queens episodes disambiguation page content. I think the the disambiguator, as it is not part of the official title of the show, should be at the end of the list of episodes article name where disambiguator parenthetical normally get added, not embedded in it. Looking for opinions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Use of series or program

I created the article Viewpoint (Australian TV series) some time ago, needing to disambiguate the title due to other articles (including television programs) also called Viewpoint. However, I'm wondering now if I should rename the article Viewpoint (Australian TV program), considering it is not episodic in the same way scripted programs are? The program is a news and politics based panel show on a cable news channel, however I don't think using (Australian talk show) is appropriate, as it doesn't fit the style of program typically refered to as a talk show (eg. The View, The Tonight Show, etc), and is more in the category of News program or Current affairs (news format). -- Whats new?(talk) 00:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Updating the text and examples

Netoholic I undid your good faith edits because, as I said in the episode summary, the above discussion did not really reach a clear consensus to move forward with any implementation (plus the discussion was 9 months ago from your edit). However, that doesn't mean this guideline couldn't do for some updating. The naming conventions section at MOS:TV, here, was recently updated after a lengthy discussion (that is here). Potentially, some of that wording and update to examples should be done here as well (including text that was added regarding episode and character list articles). I will drop a note to the TV project talk so hopefully we can implement some of those changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: - 9 months without any disagreement on the subject of the changes is sufficient. Three editors participated in the discussion, and as the editor that added it to the convention, my agreement is clear. These changes affect only rare edge cases, and are consistent with other conventions on WP. I also don't see any actionable disagreement in your post here. If you have specific disagreements, please voice them here. I'm going to restore the edit since there is no voiced disagreement with the content of the edit. I'll happily revert or alter any specific parts that people raise actionable disagreement with. Once the structure of this convention is updated, you can also put in the examples per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Naming conventions that you feel are appropriate. On a side note, that discussion should have been held here on this page. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Naming_convention should be a summary of This convention, not the other way around. -- Netoholic @ 08:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting case at Mayday (TV series)

An interesting requested move at the Mayday talk page that editors watching this page may be interested in, with regards to a Canadian produced documentary series Mayday (TV series), which an editor has rightly pointed out should be moved due to a British program of the same name. However, there is a respectable argument to move the article to Air Crash Investigation because that title is used in all territories outside North America (the U.S. uses 2 additional titles). Its a point that's been made several times before. -- Whats new?(talk) 08:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Harmonize the text of WP:NCTV with MOS:TV

In May 2016, the discussion above led to a change in the text of WP:NCTV to include the following: "If the main series page title was disambiguated from other entertainment properties (TV series, film, novel, etc.), the same should be used in all related list page titles."

However, I'm not sure the May 2016 demonstrates the necessary consensus to support this change to the text of WP:NCTV. Further, subsequent developments have actually demonstrated consensus for the opposite.

For example:

Therefore, it seems the current text at WP:NCTV quoted at the top of this proposal no longer has consensus support, and should be changed to reflect the present consensus on the question and the current common practices in the naming of articles for TV series episodes lists.

Proposal

I propose harmonizing the text at WP:NCTV so that it matches the text at MOS:TV#Naming conventions and reflects current practices as follows:

If the main TV series page title was disambiguated from other entertainment properties (e.g. other TV series, films, novels, etc.), related list pages may or may not need to be further disambiguated, depending on if whether other list articles exist.

--IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support – as proposer. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support – As a general rule we don't unnecessarily disambiguate article titles. There is some desire for consistency but, as the examples show, this is not necessary here. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support – This makes sense to me, as disambiguation should be needed for lists if other lists don't exist. Hatnotes can be used to direct readers to other content (continuing with The Flash (2014) example, the LoE has a hatenote pointing to the section for the episodes for the 1990 series). And if other list articles end up being created, moves can be made if necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support – I think simplicity/ease of discovery should trump consistency in this case. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support but that should be "...depending on whether..." —swpbT 17:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    Heh – OK: fixed! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support -- Whats new?(talk) 20:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  7. Support. All in all, this makes more sense. And consistency can sometimes have problems of its own.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

  • Just a note that someone has recently gone ahead and followed the proposal with respect to List of Nashville (2012 TV series) episodes with this move. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Joeyconnick: That's actually the fourth example I've provided above in the proposal. (It actually was moved before I wrote up this proposal.) But both that, and The Flash precedent, pretty clearly show that the current wording at NCTV is out of step with present common practice, yeah. On my end, I'd like to give this proposal discussion at least a week to see if there's any opposition... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
      • @IJBall: Oh sorry... I only scanned your additional points plus the show name was not in the text, so I missed that. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've also left a notice about this discussion at WP:DISAMB here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Before I support this, I think it should be discussed that consistency does have its merits, even if not perfectly necessary. It is simpler and easier for inexperienced editors to follow rather than to expect them to go or make them go on a discovery search for other list articles to see if they exist or not. No, it seems to me that one should wonder where will it end? The more inconsistencies that are introduced, the more likely the time will come when one or more of them will become a thorn in the side. And yet, a quick search in Wikiquote shows that there are many great minds who would support this if they were here to do so. And I will probably do the same in turn. Just thought it needed to be said that inconsistency often leads to tangles and knots.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with that sentiment actually, and I do usually prefer consistency. However, the more general naming conventions and guides around disambiguation prefer necessity over consistency, and I'm not sure there's a compelling argument as to why television articles should be a special case. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The "consistency" version can be dealt with by a redirect. Article base titles don't need to be unnecessarily complicated. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks like this proposal may affect many list pages. Should I add this discussion to Template:Centralized discussion? --George Ho (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @George Ho: It's not a "formal" RfC, so listing at WP:CENT seems like it might be overkill. Also, it really won' affect that many list articles – just a few under WP:TV... On a related note, this has gone for over a week now, with no opposition, so I intend to change to the proposed "harmonized" text in the next few days. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Oh... okay. I'll keep that in mind then. George Ho (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done – WP:NCTV text harmonized with MOS:TV text with this edit. Note that I also added an example for The Flash (1990 TV series) vs. The Flash (2014 TV series) to show a case where further disambiguation for the list articles is not regarded as being necessary. Anyone please feel free to further refine this change, if necessary. Thanks again for everyone who commented. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambig by network ID

@IJBall: - I can find no place where your removal has been discussed. There are a few cases where disambig by country/year is not clear enough for readers because shows with the same name aired in a country during a similar timeframe. These are where network ID is useful. Please show me where this has been "extensively discussed" and explain why these are not "credible cases".

You don't get to make that call. And, to be clear, one editor objecting does not overrule an established consensus. You are the only one objecting here, in support of a guideline that has now been ruled anachronistic by a revised consensus. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I like how I "don't get to make that call", but you get to make the call about what you believe is established consensus. Also, saying I am "the only one objecting here" is such a belittling, dismissive, incorrect, and ultimately irrelevant comment. Trying to make me feel alone in my view is a dirty tactic, but irrelevant because it is the editors of those pages that chose to use network disambig even when year was available to them. Seeing as your counter-examples are all still red-links (as of this moment) and those articles still sit at network disambig'd locations, it looks like even you don't have the courage of your convictions enough to move them. -- Netoholic @ 22:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I can find more examples, but I'll await your response on these. -- Netoholic @ 05:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • As was discussed Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Naming conventions, there is basically no instance where disambiguating by network is necessary – it would require the same programs, with the same titles, being released in the same country, in the same year. There is literally no example that anyone can think of of this happening – networks would always switch titles in situations such as these to avoid marketing confusion. In addition, disambiguating by network is actually non-intuitive for our readership – almost nobody alive now is going to remember which network the two Frank Sinatra Shows aired on, but they are substantially more likely to be able to remember the year of the series' premiere. Pinging @Favre1fan93 and Bignole: who also took part in that previous discussion. Meanwhile, Netoholic, I wish you would take the time to catch up on previous discussions, rather than reverting to obsolete versions, and insist that this whole discussion be needlessly repeated. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
That discussion was inappropriate to be held there when it discusses the usage of this naming convention. -- Netoholic @ 07:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Uh, yeah it does. NCTV is covered under WP:TV – that conversation involved the membership of WP:TV and was widely advertised. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television/August_2016_updates/Naming_conventions : 5 total links (other than from here), 3 of which are on user talk pages. This is not "widely advertised". You held a private discussion on a sub-sub-page. -- Netoholic @ 02:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
That's because you're looking in the wrong place – see the Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television/August_2016_updates: that was the main page which was advertised. And none of that takes away from the fact the all of the major WP:TV editors appear to have been aware of this project, and have been participating in the various sub-page discussions. Honestly, there's not some "missing" cadre of WP:TV editors clamoring for disambiguation by TV network. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Just looking at the examples given here, The Nurses is actually the same show according to the articles so they could arguably be merged anyway. The Frank Sinatra Shows can be distinguished by year as they aired years apart, and as for This Week the first BBC version began in 2003, the second redirects to Reporters and that article makes no mention of This Week being a current or former title and the ITV version had 2 runs, both pre-2000 so the first and third can be distinguished by year as well. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's interesting... Looking at that, The Nurses articles probably should be merged. Brooks & Marsh only have an entry for the CBS version, but they cover the daytime version of the show (i.e. the ABC version) at the end of the CBS series' synopsis, as if they were the same show. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
While year is useful, when the premise, subject matter, timeframe, and region are all similar, network ID is a natural way of distinguishing which benefits the readers. Using the year for news programs like This Week rather than the networks is especially confusing and unnatural. While it "can be done", that's not a good enough reason. The point of naming conventions is for the benefit of readers to quickly find the correct article, and using the year in these cases does not help that. No one would likely know which year The Frank Sinatra Show they are looking for, but they would know the network.
As an additional point - as television media evolves and moves online, distinctions like country of origin are becoming less relevant to readers. A reader would like know if a show originated on Netflix or Hulu (analogous to networks) not the year... and country of origin becomes less significant when shows are released worldwide from one of these sources. Removing this section gets rid of a very rare, but justifiable, use case right now - but will become more and more relevant as time goes on. -- Netoholic @ 07:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that many readers would be more likely to recognise a show by network than year in some cases, but there is a need for consistency and I don't think switching between the two is good for anyone. Distinguishing by year is going to be better in more cases than by network in my view. For example, what about a show that began on one network and switched to another, or a show that is syndicated and airs across multiple channels depending on what region it airs in. That can't be easily distinguished by network, but it can by year. All shows are released in a year, not all are released on the same network. -- Whats new?(talk) 07:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Right, the key words there are "in most cases". But in the rare cases where the year would still make the content of the article ambiguous, we need another option. Network is not a bad option to keep in the toolkit. The problem with using year is especially painful when two series overlap in timeframe or are both from so far back in time (The Frank Sinatra, for example, where very few people would remember which was 1950 and the other 1957. As far as consistency, network disambig has been used quite extensively in the project throughout its history. BBC shows in particular seem to still use that rather than "UK" even though country has been prefered for so long. This is an option that we will not eliminate even by removing it here because people view it as desirable. -- Netoholic @ 07:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
What are these rare cases? The previous ones you've provided have been refuted. If a reader chooses the wrong Frank Sinatra Show, the worst that happens is they go back and choose the other one. Wanted (2016 TV series) and Wanted (2013 TV series) are even closer. There were films called Wanted in 2008, 2009, Wanted (2010 film) and Wanted (2011 film) which can't be distinguished by a broadcaster, so why not keep television articles consistent with films? -- Whats new?(talk) 08:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Because television series are not films. Films have a point of time release, series can last decades, switch networks, spawn versions in several countries, etc. This is why the naming conventions are kept separate in the first place. My examples have not been "refuted" - yes you could name them with years, but no one has explained how that is more beneficial to the readers and existing editors that decided using network was better. -- Netoholic @ 08:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, your point about how TV evolves moving into the future is a great example of why using network name to disambiguate is a bad idea, not a "natural" one. For instance, if there were some need to disambiguate Switched at Birth (TV series), which started off on a network called ABC Family which later changed its name to Freeform, how can you be sure people would know it as an ABC Family series or a Freeform series, or whatever else they rebrand to? Another good example would be if Supernatural (U.S. TV series) needed (further) disambiguation... it began as a WB show but has been a CW show for 11 out of its 12 years. And reboots happen, so actually Supernatural (U.S. TV series) is not as good a choice as Supernatural (2005 TV series) would be (consider Battlestar Galactica). This is probably especially so 10, 20, 30 years from now, etc. Similarly, shows like Travelers (TV series) are co-produced by Showcase (Canada) and Netflix (US). So if that needed to be disambiguated, are you really arguing that it should go by Travelers (Showcase/Netflix TV series)—or, given the tendency for US/Canadian tiffs over these kinds of things, Travelers (Netflix/Showcase TV series)? The year of inception is stable: it does not change over time. It is unambiguous: very hard to argue that a show first started airing/was released in a year other than the one it originated in. It is singular: a show could arguably be said to "belong" to multiple networks, but it cannot originate in more than a single year. It's the clear choice. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Bottom line, Netoholic: You have been irrefutably shown that there was a previous conversation about this, and consensus was reached to eliminate using TV networks as disambiguators. (And, by your own previous words, the removal of the network disambiguation from MOS:TV was done months ago, and no one has objected or tried to restore it since, which demonstrates clear consensus for the change.) This current conversation just further drives the point home – there is no instance where disambiguating by network is necessary. Please self-revert, and restore the version of NCTV that is harmony with MOS:TV please. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Consensus through the MOS:TV section discussion determined that network disambiguation is unnecessary. While that section does not provide the full scope of naming conventions for the TV project, it is still the established consensus on the matter. I have restored IJBall's valid edit of removing the use of a network as a disambiguator. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Proponents of this change keep pointing out that the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television/August_2016_updates/Naming_conventions is the established consensus, but it was a discussion held on a sub-sub-page with almost no incoming links (Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television/August_2016_updates/Naming_conventions). It was essentially a private discussion held on a hidden page. Concern to that effect was even raised by @SMcCandlish: on that sub-sub-page itself (#Re-merge talk pages). It relates to changes to THIS guideline, editors HERE were not notified. This discussion should have been held HERE with additional notices given to WP:TV, WP:MOS, and WP:NC. -- Netoholic @ 02:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:BURO and WP:TALKFIRST – the "forum" where a discussion is held isn't important: only that a discussion that achieves a lasting consensus that follows policies and guidelines is held. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Debatable, per WP:CONLEVEL policy. It obviously matters significantly where a discussion is held and whether the community (or, rather, the participants in it likely to care) are aware it is taking place and have the opportunity for input. This has a strong effect on whether the consensus that appears to have been achieved is actual and will be lasting. If we have two TV-related guidelines that are in conflict, or two sets of editors of such guidelines in conflict, that conflict needs to be resolved, and this is best done in a centralized manner at the best-used location for such discussions, which is not likely to be that MoS subpage's talk page. I would bet good money that page, like most of the topical MoS pages, is actually just a wikiproject style advice essay that someone slapped a {{Guideline}} on without it ever going through anything like a WP:PROPOSAL process. But that's all perhaps moot: Since disambiguation (by network ID or otherwise) is purely a naming conventions matter, and has nothing to do with in-article content, it's outside the scope of MoS to begin with. I've said many times before (see, e.g., threads at WT:Manual of Style/Comics and elsewhere) that the topical guides need to be split cleanly so that the MoS subpages do not contain NC material, except in summary, and clearly link to and deter to the NC pages with regard to NC matters, and that the corresponding NC pages do the reverse when it comes to style questions like capitalization, punctuation, etc. Otherwise, conflicts like this will continue indefinitely.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed that "There are a few cases where disambig by country/year is not clear enough for readers because shows with the same name aired in a country during a similar timeframe." Disambiguation by network/station is sometimes useful, even if it should not be the default.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing the example where that is that case. Of the three put forward at the beginning of this discussion, all have been proven they can be distinguished by date. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I also agree, where are there more examples than the ones already provided where network would need to be in the disambiguation? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
"they can be distinguished by date" .... "can be" doesn't mean "should be". What's been shown is that editors have often chosen to use network disambig because it is helpful to both readers and editors even when they had the option to use year. No one in this discussion has "proven" using years is better in the examples I gave or in any other cases. They've only opined that by year is more "consistent" - that is a subjective value not a "proof". -- Netoholic @ 22:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Past practice on this score has been depracated, after a discussion on it. Please knock it off – this is getting disruptive. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to ask why something is the way it is, as well as make suggestions as you've done, but you are the one suggesting change from the current consensus, and thus it is on you to put a convincing case forward as to why a change should be made, not on others to prove the established conventions are better than you're proposal. You're argument for using network disambig is essentially a variation of WP:ILIKEIT. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I am trying to abide the core purpose of Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be". Imagining a reader searching for a specific show such as This Week. That person would generally have no idea what year each began and so the year in the title would not help them at all. They would generally know the network it aired on. This is why current editors have already used network disambig in these cases. It is a rare situation, not first prefernce, but it is absolutely viable and appropriate as an option. And its why current consensus across the project is to use network disambig. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." -- Netoholic @ 08:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
No, it's the exact opposite – only TV nerds have any idea what network a show airs on: most TV viewers have no idea about networks, and only ID TV shows by titles. (I've come across this with enough real people to know that this is true.) By WP:Readers first we should be trying to disambiguate by the least confusing way possible, which is not to disambig. by TV network. Why don't you trust that the membership of WP:TV actually knows what they're doing, and that we've thought about this and have good reasons for deciding to deprecate disambig'ing by TV network? And it's absurd to say that there's some "wider community consensus" to diambig. by TV network – the only people who care about this is the membership of WP:TV, and we've already discussed this and come to a decision about it. As for a specific case like This Week, rare cases like this is exactly what hatnotes and disambiguation pages are for, which I'll note will be required in this specific case however it's disambiguated. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
P.S. If you'd like to put together a list of shows that are currently disambiguated by network so that we can fix/update those, that would be great! Of your earlier examples, the current thinking seems to be that The Nurses articles should be merged. This Week is going to require a multi-page WP:RM discussion – I intend to get to that, but it likely won't happen for a few weeks on my end... P.P.S. In all of these cases, the disambig.-by-network pages will still be kept as redirects. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
P.P.P.S. Maybe that's the solution here – add text to NCTV (in sentence form, not as a "bullet" point) suggesting that in some case it is also a good idea to also create redirects that disambiguate by TV network. I personally would have no objection to adding something along those lines to NCTV. But the "base disambiguation titles" should not be done by network, for all of the reasons covered in this discussion and the previous one(s). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I would be fine with redirects created with network disambiguation. But articles should live at those disambiguations, as has been discussed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done! – Text added to NCTV that the creation of redirects based on disambiguation by TV network is also advisable in some cases. I have also moved the two The Frank Sinatra Show articles to disambiguation by year, as per the revisions to both NCTV and MOS:TV – I am leaving The Nurses and This Week cases alone for now, as they require more complicated solutions... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I have given your text a small c/e and added an additional sentence, still based on this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Timmyshin#Please stop moving Hong Kong TV articles

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Timmyshin#Please stop moving Hong Kong TV articles. An editor has been moving a series of Hong TV articles from "(Hong Kong TV series)" disambiguation to "(HK TV series)" disambiguation, which is apparently contrary to WP:NCTV (not to mention confusing!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

How is it contrary to WP:NCTV when it clearly prefers abbreviations like UK and U.S.? Timmyshin (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
"U.S." and "UK" are the two exceptions, as per the cited WP:NCA, and as is standard around Wikipedia for these two countries. "HK" for "Hong Kong" is not "standard". If you want to make it the standard, you need to discuss this (more likely at WT:NCTV, though here might work too). I for one will object to using "HK" over "Hong Kong" as that is not intuitive to anyone who is not a Hong Kong native – "Hong Kong" should be spelled out, just as we do for "Canadian TV series", "Indian TV series", "Irish TV series", etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
But, again, the larger point is that you started making these page moves without discussing this first, and as I am objecting they are no longer "non-controversial" moves, and the page moves need to be reverted until this issue gains consensus on one side or the other. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Most people in Asia, at least East Asia and Southeast Asia, know what HK stands for. This is also the demographics that watch HK TV shows. I get it that you don't know, but you would not read or edit these articles if I didn't move them today, would you? Most Americans still wouldn't know what Hong Kong is even if spelled out, and these articles are not for them. "Canadian", "Indian", and "Irish" are irrelevant examples, CAN doesn't redirect to Canada and IND doesn't redirect to India, but HK redirects to Hong Kong. Timmyshin (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
That's not how it works – you need to show that there is consensus that "HK" is an acceptable shorthand for "Hong Kong" in disambiguation before moving a bunch of articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • 1) WP:NCA: "To save space, acronyms should be used as disambiguators, when necessary." 2) HK is unambiguous (or at the very least WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) for Hong Kong. Timmyshin (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:NCA: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject..." (emphasis mine) I don't believe it can be argued that this is the case with "HK" and "Hong Kong". Regardless, at the point, I'm going to stop commenting: we need other editors to comment on this to establish consensus – you and I arguing back in forth isn't going to do this. We need to hear how other editors feel on the issue... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Quite simply, US and UK are very widely known abbreviations, used worldwide, while HK is not. It's the same for most other countries. We don't use "AU TV series", "NZ TV series" etc.
Most people in Asia, at least East Asia and Southeast Asia, know what HK stands for. This is also the demographics that watch HK TV shows. - Articles are not written or named for one particular demographic. They're written for all readers, worldwide.
MOS:ACRO lists the countries for which acronyms are may be used. These are EU, PRC, UAE, UK, US or U.S. and USSR. HK, which could easily be interpreted as being Hell's Kitchen, is not in the list, so Hong Kong should be used. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "MOS:ACRO lists the countries for which acronyms are may be used": That's not what it says on the page. It reads: "For these commonly referred to entities, the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out." I don't see how this has anything to do with the issue.
"We don't use "AU TV series", "NZ TV series" etc.": AU is not an acronym (assuming you mean Australia, not African Union). But NZ is, and I think "NZ TV series" should also be used per WP:NCA.
"Articles are not written or named for one particular demographic. They're written for all readers, worldwide." I don't dispute that in general, but WP:AT on recognizability is quite clear: An article should be titled as long as "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Timmyshin (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
That's not what it says on the page. It reads: "For these commonly referred to entities, the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out." - It actually says "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page" and those countries are listed in the "Exceptions" section. The spirit of MOS:ACRO, and indeed any part of the MOS extends beyond just the page on which it is written.
I think "NZ TV series" should also be used per WP:NCA - NCA says "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject" and that's not the case with Hong Kong or New Zealand. Locally, residents may refer to Hong Kong as "HK" (do they? Do we have a source for that?) but worldwide it's not the case. Hong Kong is known primarily as Hong Kong. Nor is "HK" primarily associated with Hong Kong. HK (disambiguation) and Hell's Kitchen (disambiguation) both list a number of uses for HK.
WP:AT on recognizability is quite clear: An article should be titled as long as "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." - That doesn't apply. Given the popularity of Hell's Kitchen, a TV series, disambiguating an article with "HK TV series" may mislead a reader into thinking the article is related to the Hell's Kitchen TV series. What I said at the beginning stands, the only countries where we use abbreviations are the UK and US. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The WP:NCA part that's relevant is "To save space, acronyms should be used as disambiguators, when necessary." I haven't seen you address that. Timmyshin (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • He hasn't answered because there's no "saving space" issue here (that's referring to situations like Infoboxes and tables), and because he understands that the purpose of disambiguation is to guide readers to the correct articles in the most obvious and intuitive ways possible. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "For these commonly referred to entities, the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out." I'm glad AussieLegend pointed to MOS:ACRO (I'd never seen this before...): this is pretty clear – what it's saying is if it not in the list (e.g. EU, U.S.) then the country must be spelled out. So AL's right – it needs to be "Hong Kong" for the purposes of disambiguation in terms of WP:NCTV. As for WP:AT, I feel that you're misinterpreting it – plenty of readers will not recognize that "HK" = "Hong Kong" in the context of WP:NCTV (it's not common usage throughout much of the globe): that's why it needs to be spelled out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Plenty of readers" are irrelevant if they aren't familiar with the subject. Do you think HSP60 should be spelled out since I assume you don't know what it stands for without clicking on the link? Timmyshin (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You have no idea what the purpose of disambiguation is, do you?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I'd actually like you to answer the question – what do you think the purpose of disambiguation is? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation is to make sure readers don't land in the wrong topic if they are looking for something specific. Now can you answer my question: Do most people know what HSP60 stands for and should the article be moved? Timmyshin (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There's not a disambiguation issue there. And if you think that article should be moved, you can put in a WP:RM request... Which is what you should have done in this situation in the first place. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • My answer is that your example isn't relevant to this discussion, which is – should "HK" be used instead of "Hong Kong" in NCTV terms? So far, the answer is 2-to-1 that it shouldn't, and I'm not seeing a strong (policy-based) argument that it should be changed to use "HK" instead. If you want it changed, where "HK" can be used all across En Wikipedia, you would probably need to launch a site-wide RfC on the issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

FTR, if you don't care for the outcome of this discussion, there's a valid alternate way to disambigaution TV shows from different countries: disambiguation by year. For example, Night Shift (Irish TV series) could be moved to Night Shift (2006 TV series), Night Shift (UK TV series) could be moved to Night Shift (1992 TV series)(?... honestly, I'm not even sure this one is notable under WP:TVSHOW, as it's unsourced), and Night Shift (Hong Kong TV series) could be moved to Night Shift (2015 TV series). But even if you intend to do this, I would urge you to do it through the formal Requested move process. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you can answer this question: should "Chinese TV series" be moved to "PRC TV series" since PRC is on that MOS:ACRO list? Or is that list only valid for U.S./UK? Timmyshin (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    • OK, not the issue at hand. And you're acting like it's just me who has a stake in this, but a number of editors have worked on NCTV. If you're patient, you will likely hear from the others (at least some of whom probably haven't even logged in since this discussion began...) how they feel on this subject. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Another article naming question...

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Another article naming question.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Massive WP:NCTV pile-up of articles about Hunter TV series...

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Massive WP:NCTV pile-up of articles about Hunter TV series.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Query on naming and disambiguation

Not sure I've seen this before... Dinner Date is 2010 British television game show. Based on page views it is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Now to the issue – Dinner Date (1950 DuMont TV series) also exists. It is obviously overly disambiguated, and needs to be moved.

My question is this – Can Dinner Date (1950 DuMont TV series) be moved to just Dinner Date (TV series), even though Dinner Date (which is about a TV series) already exists? Or does Dinner Date (1950 DuMont TV series) need to be moved to something like Dinner Date (U.S. TV series) or Dinner Date (1950 TV series)?

Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I would approach these situations by treating each one assuming that none was primary topic. In this case, Dinner Date would be Dinner Date (game show) and Dinner Date (1950 DuMont TV series) would be Dinner Date (TV series). Once that's done, if one show deserves primary topic, then simply remove the disambig from that one alone and leave the other(s). So yes, I don't think the DuMont article needs any further disambiguation than (TV series), and I would create a preemptive redirect for Dinner Date (game show) to aid with searching. -- Netoholic @ 11:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done – ok, good suggestion: moves performed, and redirects created, as suggested. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Snow Queen (TV series)#Requested move 10 June 2017

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Snow Queen (TV series)#Requested move 10 June 2017. Would like some eyes from NCTV on this one, as I'm not sure if a move here is necessary or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This one touches on the can of worms around the use of (anime) as a disambiguation because Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles#Article names and disambiguation is in direct conflict with WP:NCTV and WP:NCF. If we followed WP:NCTV/WP:NCF, then (anime) would be (animated TV series) for episodic shows and (film) for feature-length productions. I don't like that this particular genre of television show (and film) exists as an exception to the existing naming conventions. Why do the productions of one genre from one country deserve exception? I get that it makes sense within that subculture of fandom, but I'm not sure that it warrants the workarounds we need to do. This may require a wide-scale, multi-project RFC at some point. -- Netoholic @ 09:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Netoholic: OK, assume for a minute that the article at "(anime)" was actually at "(animated TV series)" (which can be added as a side-proposal in the RM, if warranted) – does the other article at "(TV series)" still need to be moved to something else? And if so, does it need to be moved to "(South Korean TV series)"? Or is "(TV series)" and "(animated TV series)" enough disambiguation on its own? That was really my question in this case... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
"(TV series)" and "(animated TV series)" is enough if its just those two shows. Both will come up in a search and it should be clear which is which. Hatnotes cover any additional confusion. -- Netoholic @ 03:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Edge (Fox TV series)#Requested move 20 June 2017

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Edge (Fox TV series)#Requested move 20 June 2017. This involves a multiple-articles related move request. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Seriously could use more opinions on this one – I don't care if people come up with a proposal that is different than mine. But leaving the articles where they are now is contrary to NCTV... 21:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Query on naming of Four Corners TV programs

There are a total of three television programs with a title containing "Four Corners", according to Four Corners (disambiguation)#Television:

The first of these is fine, and can be considered to be sufficiently diambiguated under WP:SMALLDETAILS.

My concern is the latter two:

So, which is it? Any opinions on which course of action to take here are welcome. Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to hurt anything to move the Australian article to Four Corners (Australian TV programme). That removes any confusion over the name and since it's already disambiguated, adding "Australian" is not an issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I was going to say that if "TV programme" is standard disambig for Australian TV, what AussieLegend suggests sounds like the right way to go. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
It would be Four Corners (Australian TV program) for Australia - "programme" is British -- Whats new?(talk) 05:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that "programme" is kind of the "Commonwealth spelling", outside of Canada where they'd use the "U.S. spelling" of "program"... Is this wrong? Is "programme" not the correct spelling for Aus. & NZ?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm Australian and I'd say while both are okay in Australian English, 'program' is more correct (although I haven't checked the Macquarie Dictionary). If you look at the names of articles in 'Category:Australian television news programmes' mostly 'program' is used (e.g. Dateline (Australian TV program), Insight (Australian TV program), Sunday (Australian TV program)) so I reckon go with that. Boneymau (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
As Boneymau says (and as an Aussie also) both 'program' and 'programme' are acceptable forms of spelling in Australia, but (I suspect much like the reasons in Canada) we more commonly use the U.S. spelling. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Some further reading for those interested: [1] [2] -- Whats new?(talk) 06:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I've been Australian since I was born over 57.5 years ago and while both spellings are now acceptable, thanks mainly to the internet and the failure of people to set their spell checkers to "International English" (I kid not sadly), the traditional spelling is most definitely "programme". --AussieLegend (✉) 12:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
In light of this issue, I'm inclined to do this as a formal Requested move then, to hash out the "program" vs. "programme" issue. I'll probably do that by this weekend... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"program" vs. "programme" should be resolved by checking the references and seeing how they describe it. -- Netoholic @ 20:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure that helps, as there are sources with both spellings (though "program" seems to be used more often). Still thinking a WP:RM is the most transparent way to handle this one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Whichever one you pick, somebody is going to disagree simply because both are widely used these days. The RfC would go on for ages and achieve nothing. Look at how long this related CfD has been underway. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The distinction between "program" and "series" is too subtle for the average reader. As such, I would add country disambig to the last two (Four Corners (Australian TV program), Four Corners (U.S. TV series)) and create several redirects to also aid. -- Netoholic @ 20:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Yep – definitely was thinking about creating several redirects for these as well. But Four Corners (TV program) and Four Corners (TV series) should both be redirecting back to Four Corners (disambiguation) – Four Corners (TV program) should never have been moved to Four Corners (TV series) as it was in May 2012... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: Again, I'd refer you to the articles I linked to. Programme is indeed the "traditional spelling" but not the most used or recognised in Australia in the modern era. As the Macquarie Dictionary editor said "Dictionaries give 'program' as the first choice and 'programme' as a minor alternative." Both are acceptable, but "program" is by far the most used. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The Australian program Four Corners is not an episodic series, so (TV program) is the appropriate use according to WP:NCTV. The show airs unrelated documentary or current affairs stories each week, rather than story continuation. I would object to using Four Corners (TV series) for the obvious reason it breaches this article's own naming conventions. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Predominance of use does not mean that "program" should be given preference over "programme". Both are widely used in Australia, as are both "season" and "series". "mtr", "kms" and "kph" are very widely used instead of "metre", "kilometre and "kilometres per hour" but none are correct abbreviations. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
"Programme" is not as widely used as "program" and I'd challenge you to find evidence that it is. Season and series certainly are interchangeable, and I'm not sure what kms V kilometre has to do with anything. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd challenge you to find actual proof that program is used more than programme. It's one thing to claim it is, it's another to prove that a belief actually is the case. As for "kms" etc, that was an example of predominance of use being an invalid reason to use a certain term or spelling. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I already cited the editor of the Macquarie Dictionary, the authoritative source on Australian English, saying "'program' as the first choice and 'programme' as a minor alternative." More specifically to Four Corners, see the About Page on Four Corner's website, the episode description on the ABC website, the description in the show's official Twitter account and the Australian Screen (an Australian Government website) page about the origins of Four Corners - all of which use the word "program." -- Whats new?(talk) 05:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, you cited "the Editor", which doesn't appear to be a real name. The entire article looks like an opinion piece more than anything else. It's written as if it's coming from an anonymous blogger. She seems to have disdain for both the former PM and the French. However, the point you're missing is that just because she says it's the case doesn't actually mean it is. Working out which is the more predominant word is like counting all the grains of sand on a beach. Someone can set themselves up as an authority and eventually enough people will believe it, which is exactly what happened with Macquarie and which is why "mt", "mt.", "kms", "kph" etc have become so widely used. The reality is, both are widely used and you really can't say one is more popular because it's not something you can actually measure. You can guess, and that's about all. As for how the ABC describes the programme, it's not just up to the ABC. As Netoholic said, it's really up to how all reliable sources refer to it, but that's still an impractical solution for the reasons IJBall stated. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
A further source from ANDC Director Amanda Laugesen who advises the Oxford University Press on Australian English who says "It's a shorter word, it's more efficent and that's the way spelling tends to head." [3]. Surely when it comes to naming the Four Corners article, the spelling they use themselves is wholly relevant? I accept sometimes 'programme' can be used, but far and away in reliable sources which specifically mention Four Corners, 'program' delivers far more results: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] -- Whats new?(talk) 08:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
User:AussieLegend, you're on a losing wicket here. All the evidence says it clearly should be program despite your apparent regard for the old ways. There's no need to debate this further.Boneymau (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Commonsense always escapes some people.
Surely when it comes to naming the Four Corners article, the spelling they use themselves is wholly relevant? - As far as the name of the programme itself is concerned, yes, that is correct, but when it comes to identifying it as a programme, program, series, etc is concerned, that's up to other reliable sources and the naming conventions. If Wikpedia convention decided to refer to it as a hamster and there was consensus for it then that's how it would be referred to, which is why the CfD that I linked to has been going on for 6+ months with no resolution. I'm starting to think that maybe we should take this to RfC since we clearly have some differences of opinion here. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with an RfC, but I don't think it is necessary. I'm still yet to hear any evidence from you that 'programme' is the preferred term in Australia. I've refuted it several times. -- Whats new?(talk) 11:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
What you've said is just one group of opinions. You've acknowledged yourself that "programme" is the traditional spelling. However, here's a big refutation for you: Australia doesn't have an official language, just a defacto standard and that is most definitely not mandated. Strictly speaking, anything specified by NCTV is acceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Back to the specific issue at hand – Are people fine with a WP:RM? Or do you all just want me to (boldly) move it, as per WP:NCTV (and this discussion)?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Just move it. Moving it doesn't appear controversial. Where to move it is what is controversial. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done – moved to Four Corners (Australian TV program). Working on revising/creating redirects now... The "program" vs. "programme" question for Aus TV shows is beyond the scope here – that may require an RfC to settle... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I would have thought Four Corners(Australian TV) would be sufficient for a dab Gnangarra 23:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
It is not, as per WP:NCTV... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Changing headings from "Episodic/Non-episodic" to "Serial/Non-serial"

I've twice now attempted to change the headings for these two sections on the main page to better address some confusion that I've seen from time to time when referencing this policy. The reason for this confusion stems from people pointing out that certain types of shows, like game shows, news programs, etc. are made up of episodes which then leads to incorrect disambiguation. The distinction we're trying to make on this page for naming purposes is between serial television shows which would disambig with (TV series) vs other shows which would use disambig like (TV program).

For those that have reverted my change, please tell me what you call an individual airing of a program like Jeopardy! if not an "episode". And then explain why these shows which have episodes are listed under a heading "Non-episodic television". -- Netoholic @ 18:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

As described in serial (radio and television) (and implied by the dictionary definition of the term), " a serial has a continuing plot that unfolds in a sequential episode-by-episode fashion". However, many (perhaps even most) non-dramatic as well as more than a few dramatic series consist of stand-alone episodes that have little or no continuing plot narrative. I find switching the headings to "serial" to result in far more confusion than before. older ≠ wiser 18:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
(after ec) PS I'm not steeped in the jargon here, but I think the distinction is between fictional entertainment where there is a consistent setting and characters in which stories unfold (or perhaps to include anthology series like Black Mirror or Murder (TV series), there is a some unifying thematic element), which would typically be disambiguated as "TV series", and non-fiction or reality-based shows, which would typically be disambiguation as "TV program" or TV show". older ≠ wiser 18:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The issue is that a good chunk of "reality" TV shows, like Survivor and Big Brother, could probably be legitimately called "TV series" as opposed to "TV programs". What should clearly fall under the "TV program" rubric are game shows, talk shows, and news shows... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I had thought of that soon after I posted. But even such cases, the "serial-ness" is more evident and there is usually a consistent setting or some unifying thematic elements connecting them in a story-telling sense. older ≠ wiser 19:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I used the same link that our article Television program used when describing serial television. If you disagree with the content of either article, take it up there. The point is that we need some baseline to help people decide whether to use (TV series) or (TV program) because right now its inconsistently applied. (Added) Also I am not opposed to removing that wikilink if its confusing, but the headers must change because of the confusion about episodes as I describe above. -- Netoholic @ 18:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I don't disagree with this, and think making this clearer would be useful. I just strongly disagree that the word "episodic" is the problem here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the way out of this is somehow emphasizing "continuing narratives or themes" and/or "continuing characters" (but not a continuing "host", like in a gameshow) – that is really what separates "TV series" from "TV programs"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
When I pull up "episodic" on my the dictionary on my Mac, this is what I get: "containing or consisting of a series of loosely connected parts or events: an episodic narrative". This is exactly how the term is used when describing "episodic television" – it doesn't just mean "consisting of episodes" (which is nearly everything on TV). "Serial" is not a term that has been used in North America to describe television in decades. Everyone knows what is mean by "episodic television", and long-standing header titles should not be changed from a clearer version to a less clear version. Under WP:ENGVAR, the most recognizable term across regions should be used here, and that's "episodic". I have no problem with also using the word "serial", along with "episodic", in the text though. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
"it doesn't just mean "consisting of episodes" (which is nearly everything on TV)." And THIS is the source of the confusion I see. People overuse (TV series) when they should be using (TV program) - and I think a lot of it stems from the misleading heading. "Serial" in this context does not mean exclusively old-timey serial westerns shown at the cineplex or heard on the radio. "Serial" just means "in a series". "Episodic" means "made up of episodes" which applies, as you said, to almost everything and that's why the heading must change. -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Except for the part where your ignoring the definition I just used. Again, "episodic" is not really the source of the confusion here. It's just that in general usage, "TV program" has fallen out of favor, and so the general public has come to think of everything as a "TV series". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, while there is a linguistic relationship between the terms "serial" and "series", I find it confusing to use the term "serial" to describe to what has become a much more generic usage of the term "series" in the context of television shows. older ≠ wiser 18:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
In N.A., the term "serial" has come to have a very narrow defintion – it basically means "soap opera"! It's not a general usage term anymore. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not ignoring your definition, I am saying that MANY other people don't use that definition and use the more general meaning of "episodic" as "consisting of episodes". I am trying to address that. -- Netoholic @ 18:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Understood. I'm saying that we address this in the text, not by changing the headers to something a good chunk of the readership won't recognize. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If we instead change the headings to "Series television" and "Non-series television", would that ally the concerns since we're avoiding "Serial"? -- Netoholic @ 19:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, better. I would like to see comments from others on this, to see if there's a consensus for that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I think I'd be fine with that, although we risk chasing tails in circular references (e.g. use "TV series" to disambiguate series television shows). I think the descriptions of the sections currently under Episodic television and Non-episodic television could use some cleanup as well. The statement Each episode of an on-going show usually is self-contained with little connection to other episodes, other than title, format, and on-air personalities could apply to some series as well as to non-episodic shows. older ≠ wiser 19:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Gonna be bold and make that change. I'm also incorporating description changes from the discussion here. -- Netoholic @ 19:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm OK with the changes, although it may be something of a lost cause (or perhaps a Sisyphian task). Consider this was added to a disambiguation page on my watchlist shortly after your edit. Seems "series" may also be used to describe game shows in sources used as references [12] and [13]. older ≠ wiser 19:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Its only as Sisyphian as any other Wikipedia task. We just need to find problems and correct them per the guidelines we establish. Reality TV shows are arguably "series" rather than "game show" if the characters recur week-to-week as part of narrative. I don't see either version of Cannonball qualifies. -- Netoholic @ 03:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Why was the name of the Cannonball articles changed? What exactly was wrong with "Cannonball (Australian TV series)" as a title? I think using "Cannonball (Australian game show)" is not particularly accurate - it puts it in the same realm as a true game show like Wheel of Fortune or The Price is Right, where as Cannonball is more of an entertainment reality show. If you're going to extend it, then things like The Bachelor and MasterChef will have to be renamed as a "game show" as well given there is a winner. I think the term should be restricted to actual game shows. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
There is room for discussion when it comes to "reality game shows", but in the case of Cannonball, it seems clear its a simple competition show with a different set of contestants each episode. There is no serial narrative element. That means it fits in the more specific (game show) disambiguation category. This is especially true when there exists Cannonball (TV series), a truly narrative show. -- Netoholic @ 04:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a solution looking for a problem. While I see that the term "episodic" is perhaps problematic, "series" and "non-series" is completely inappropriate withinin a Canada/US context. First off, I've never seen a reliable source in the entertainment media of either country refer to something as "non-series television"—as someone said above, common usage would be to call all shows/programs/collections of episodes with the same title a "series", whether it has any serialized components or not. Second, this is laughable: Each episode of an on-going show usually is self-contained with little connection to other episodes, other than title, format, hosts, and other on-air personalities. So, with little connection except for all these major attributes they share? C'mon!
The more appropriate delineator (again from the Canada/US perspective) based on common references in reliable sources would be "scripted" and "unscripted" series. That's still somewhat problematic as we all know "unscripted" series have writers and are not necessarily the cinéma vérité they would often like us to think they are, but at least that would mirror how they are actually referred to by the sources we cite. Maybe "narrative" and "non-narrative" would work? I guess reality TV shows have "narratives" from time to time. Or maybe just stop trying to make a distinction between classes and say: for television where there is a narrative connection between episodes (e.g. ongoing characters and/or plotlines), use "(TV series)". For game shows, use "(game show)", for talk shows... etc. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I really don't see what the issue is with "(TV series)" for scripted and "(TV program/programme)" for everything else, or indeed just use either one for all genres. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
If we're looking for the "simplest" solution, that would be it – scripted/fictional episodic TV shows = "TV series", everything else = "TV program". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, and I see no compelling reason to move away from that -- Whats new?(talk) 22:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother (U.S.)

Looking for suggestions to see if this needs to be renamed as per WP:NCTV (I'm thinking yes...)? And if so what it should be renamed to? – Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series)? Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV program)?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series), clearly. Reality shows like this one absolutely incorporate narrative storytelling, generated by both scripted lines (they have writing staff), scripted situations, and selective editing. The characters progress through the narrative week to week. The next closest option would be (U.S. game show), a more specific supported usage than (TV program) style, but reality shows focus more on character narrative than on game play. -- Netoholic @ 03:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: According to Celebrity Big Brother (disambiguation), the following articles are also misnamed as per NCTV:
So each of these need to be moved too. I'll put these on my mental "To Do" list, but feel free to move them if you get to it first... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, my move to Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) was just reverted on the basis of Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother#Naming articles. My question is – can this WP's naming conventions supersede NCTV? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I personally prefer just keeping the (U.S.) as it follows WikiProject Big Brother and the majority of articles follow that policy. I might just open a move request over there too. However either way wouldn't this also make Celebrity Big Brother misnamed? If so there is an active move discussion at Talk:Celebrity Big Brother. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
As I said at my talk page, I'm inclined to leave the whole suite of the "season" BB articles, like Big Brother 12 (UK) vs. Big Brother 12 (U.S.), where they are – I don't think those explicitly "contradict" NCTV. But that does not apply to the "Celebrity Big Brother" articles – as per NCTV, those do need to be moved to Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series), Celebrity Big Brother (Croatian TV series), etc. @TheDoctorWho: In the case of Celebrity Big Brother (i.e. the UK one), it's considered the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so it does not need additional disambiguation in any case... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that a naming convention that applies to every TV program/programme/series should supercede what one wikiproject prefers, especially when that project is only a child of WP:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The UK version of the show should have the name changed as well if these are being changed... they are all different series and not having that one marked as UK will be very confusing as the US one is likely to get a lot of attention in the next few months. Spanneraol (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Spanneraol: It's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC – it doesn't need additional disambig. because ~99% of the people looking for "Celebrity Big Brother" are looking for the UK version. That may change next winter. But, for right now, it should stay where it is... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
How can you be sure of that? I'd say that with the new US one starting soon, that the majority of people will be looking for information on it. They are all different versions of the show and the primary topic article should be one that discusses all of the different international versions and how they are different. Spanneraol (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject Big Brother's naming convention for season articles does fit within WP:NCTV's guidelines for seasons (WP:TVSEASON) in that a title like "Big Brother 19" is the most common way to reference those seasons. But IJBall's move to Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) is fully in accordance to our naming standard for series articles. Celebrity Big Brother (U.S.), Celebrity Big Brother (Croatia), and the rest need to be moved. The main article on the series' should not use the same disambiguation style as the pages on seasons. -- Netoholic @ 20:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The thing with Celebrity Big Brother (U.S.) is that it isn't a TV series in its own right it is just a spin-off season of Big Brother (U.S. TV series) so it would be incorrect to rename it to Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) as that implies it is a separate series from the American edition as a whole which it is not. CBS has made that very clear in their press release that this is just an extra season of Big Brother (U.S. TV series) outside their summer editions where they are keeping the current naming of Big Brother (insert season number). The reason for the (U.S.) at the end is to differentiate it from the British version of Celebrity Big Brother which IS a spin-off series from its parent program Big Brother (UK TV series). The press release clearly identifies this as special winter edition and does not desgniate this as a separate series in its own right.

When I read WP:NCTV about what is considered a TV Series and a Season article Celebrity Big Brother (U.S.) falls into a Season article. The only difference between the regular Big Brother seasons versus the upcoming Celebrity Big Brother season is the contestants are celebrities not civilians and it is shorter. All other aspects of Celebrity Big Brother such as the competitions, evictions, format of the show, etc will be just like Big Brother (U.S. TV series). This includes production, multiple episodes per week, live internet feeds, etc. Unless I am misreading or not understanding something on why this is a special case except for the reason it needs to follow established naming conventions then someone who supports moving it to Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) really needs to explain why this one season needs to be designated as a TV series when it clearly is just a one off edition of Big Brother (U.S. TV series) unless it is successful and CBS orders more seasons.

Renaming Celebrity Big Brother (U.S.) to Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) might also be rendered redundant because if CBS orders a second season then it would just be renamed Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.) to match the naming convention used for a second season if CBS orders another celebrity season. Celebrity Big Brother (Croatian TV series) falls under the same thing as the American version of Celebrity Big Brother as it is just a single season and was never spun off into its own series. The only time there should be a Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) is if CBS spins Celebrity Big Brother into its own series and there is enough changes in the format that warrants the American celebrity edition to have a series overview article of its own. The discussion on aligning Celebrity Big Brother articles to align with WP:NCTV that should be had is:

It's really debatable that Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) is just a "season" of Big Brother – it has a different title: different title = different series. Basically, those arguing against naming that article properly are trying to rely on a weird technicality that the rest of around here don't view as justified. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
It's clearly a spin-off series, just like Big Brother: Over the Top is. Spanneraol (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
No question it should be Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series). Season articles may be different, but the article in question is about series and NCTV should apply. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Why is it TV series instead of a season? Because CBS calls it a "special winter edition" in the press release? The article will be formatted as a Big Brother season article and any special twists that impact that season will be noted but other than that it follows the format listed in Big Brother (U.S. TV series). I'm not saying that WP:BIGBRO takes precedent over WP:NCTV but this just doesn't make any sense to me why this 1 season needs to be labeled a TV series? If this Celebrity season doesn't work out and isn't renewed by CBS for a second season then it essentially will be listed in Big Brother (U.S. TV series) as a spin-off season but to have the article itself listed as TV series just constricts the parent article. Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) should only be used if there is more than one celebrity season and the format branches off from Big Brother (U.S. TV series) to the point it warrants it like the British version. I'm not arguing which takes precedent I'm just saying to me when applying Wikipedia guidelines and policies naming the article Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) would imply to the casual reader there is more than 1 season which at this point would fall under WP:CRYSTAL and the article's title would contradict Big Brother (U.S. TV series) which lists it as a "spin-off" along with the other seasons. I don't think a more detailed explanation as to why it should be labeled (U.S. TV series) versus using the precedent established for season articles is too much to ask. Constantly saying "it should be" with no explanation as to why it should really isn't helping me understand why it should be. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Because it is NOT 'just another season' it is a spin-off. The elements are different, notably the cast is made up of celebrities rather than applicants. The title is different. The duration of the program is different (CBB is going to be much shorter as sources outline). It is not just a new season, it is a spin-off just like a previous editor noted Big Brother: Over the Top was. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) is a new series. The press release has two lines that show this - 1) "BIG BROTHER has been dominating pop culture throughout its 19 seasons" 2) "BIG BROTHER's milestone 20th season that will be broadcast in summer 2018". This indicates that CBB (which airs in winter) is not season 20, and doesn't fit in the season numbering progression, and so will be a separate series. -- Netoholic @ 04:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The Five...

Do The Five (TV program) and The Five (TV series) need to be additionally disambiguated to The Five (U.S. TV program) and The Five (UK TV series)? Or are they fine where they are (with the hatnotes)?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there any reason why one is referred to as a "program" and the other as a "series"? I'm not familiar with either of them but they both look like series to me. Spanneraol (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes – the UK program is scripted with a continuing narrative (which makes it a "TV series"); the U.S. one is a news program. This is covered in NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
In this case, I think moving The Five (TV program) to The Five (talk show) is the right solution. -- Netoholic @ 03:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Mmmmmm... It's not really a "talk show" in the way we think of it... It's more of a "news discussion show" with a pretty fixed set of panelists. For example, they basically never have "guests" in the way a traditional talk show like The Tonight Show or The Ellen DeGeneres Show does... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Its a talk show. its format fits the description used in Talk show. The article's first line says so, and its in Category:American television talk shows along with similar panel-style discussion shows like The View and news discussion like Meet the Press. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't really see a problem here. I would agree that "(talk show)" isn't a natural fit -- Whats new?(talk) 07:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Whats new?: So are you saying you think the articles are fine at their current locations? I admit, I'm leaning in that direction too, as I think the hatnotes at the two articles adequately do the trick... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 11:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes I think they are OK with hatnotes. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC about using either "program" or "programme" for Australian series

Consensus is that program should be used for Australian television series. While there were those who were fine with either usage in general, some of those comments also asserted that program was the preferred usage for television series. Taken as a whole, there is consensus for adapting the style of program for television series. This close should not be read as affecting Wikipedia's use of programme in Australian English outside of the context of television. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following on from a previous discussion on this page, is the spelling "program" or "programme" most appropriate for Australian television series? -- Whats new?(talk) 05:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • program - per points raised in earlier Four Corners discussion, sources on spelling like this and how reliable sources most commonly spell the word in relation to television programming [14] [15] [16] -- Whats new?(talk) 05:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC) (as initiator of RfC)
  • program for the reasons given above, in particular for the editor of the Macquarie Dictionary saying "dictionaries give ‘program’ as the first choice and ‘programme’ as a minor alternative in non-computer use"
  • program. In Australia a "program" is a radio/TV broadcast, and a "programme" is a schedule of events (e.g. a theatre programme). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Both depending on context. Consistent with all of the referenced examples above the essentially universal common de-facto standard usage I believe is as follows:
    • Computer program (which is originally the US(?) version of programme for computer instructions)
    • Radio or television program / show / particular broadcast episode or series of episodes
    • A schedule of events or activities or instructions is a programme, eg a theatre programme or study course programme or project programme
      • A television or radio station has a programme giving a list of timed programs ie program episodes are programmed into time slots in a programme of broadcasts
    • It is always "mm" in progamming and programmed
Aoziwe (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Both As an Australian who has had over 57 years experience with the language, in Australian English both spellings are acceptable. Certainly, in recent years "program" has gained purchase but "programme" is the traditional, and still quite acceptable spelling. This RfC is not going to change that. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The spelling has been discussed at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board than once, resulting in program being preferred, for example in 2006. Paul foord (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • program. Yes, this was not always the case, but it is definitely the case now. I completely understand that people can be wedded to certain things in language (hell, I still use "encyclopaedia" and "gaol" most of the time in my own writing and I will never give up the fight on "alright" being wrong), which is fine, but there comes a time when the language just moves on, and that's happened here. Using "programme" at this point is a bit like writing "to-day" or putting an apostrophe in 'phone. It was correct once, but these days it's fussy at best and outdated at worst. I did have a look to see if any significant publication (of any kind) had used "programme" in the last ten years, and I found very, very little, almost of all of it captions for photos and such like which probably didn't go through normal editing. I would be interested if anyone has any real evidence of significant usage of "programme" - are there any Australian style guides that still suggest it? Frickeg (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Comparing this to "to-day" and "'phone" is a bit of a stretch. I don't think I ever wrote either of those. The first has been out of style for at least 60 years and I don't know when the second was ever in style, while "programme" is still an acceptable spelling today. Even the Macquarie Dictionary recognises that. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Programme is obviously not at either of their stages just yet, but I do think the comparison is valid. "Programme" is still accepted, yes, but clearly not preferred and clearly less common, so I see no reason why we should be using it (unless there is a clear majority of sources doing so for a particular subject). I think (hope?) the point of my argument is clear. Frickeg (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
        • The point that your argument misses is that the word is still accepted and it's not up to us to determine that we should not use the word. To do so is really in the realm of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
          • Accepted, but not preferred or even used, as far as I can tell, by anyone much recently. Again, if evidence were presented that any serious publication or media outlet had been using "programme" in the last ten years or so, I might change to "both" here. Frickeg (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Both - program for TV, radio and computing, programme for all other uses. - Nick Thorne talk 13:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Macquarie Dictionary prefers program for all uses.[17] Paul foord (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's program—that is, unless you suffer under the "captain's call" Abbott made in 2014 that all federal public servants would use the spelling of his homeland (the UK). The ABC, wisely, thumbed their noses at this idiocy. Tony (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment see The Micallef P(r)ogram(me)#Name changes as an illustration of the issue. -- Paul foord (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Both. Either is generally acceptable, I personally prefer "programme", but "program" will be understood by everyone. The exceptions being as outlined by User:Aoziwe above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC).
  • Either is acceptable use however Wikipedia has clearly determined that the naming convention is Program. I think I would actually choose "series" and "show" (for a single episode) rather than either "program" or "programme". Category:Australian television news programmes (with "mme") contains ten "series" and eighteen "program"s but no "programme"s (please excuse the non-standard grammar to emphasis whether the 's' is included in the page titles). There are also subcategories with more of both "program" and "series" but not "programme". The worst mixup is Four Corners (Australian TV program) contained in Category:Four Corners (TV series) as a subcategory of Category:Australian Broadcasting Corporation shows and sub-subcategory of Category:Australian television news programmes. A side-issue is that the names of the categories need to be standardised by someone with more time and pedantry. --Scott Davis Talk 01:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Program, for TV series (and computer code) [non-Australian !vote; throw eggs at the American at will]. Use the shorter version, per MOS:COMMONALITY and previous WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board discussions. It's also simply more concise; don't use a longer word or version of a word unless it seems necessary, not just because it suits one's personal preference. Usage is very mixed, leaning toward short, so prefer short absent an overwhelming reason not to. "Both", in the sense of "let chaos reign, regardless of context", isn't a valid answer, because this is a recurrent, time-wasting dispute and it thus needs to be decided long-term, else more editorial productivity will be wasted on this trivia. I agree with "theatre programme or study course programme or project programme", and "A television or radio station has a programme giving a list of timed programs" (though we wouldn't actually write that in an article, as potentially confusing). These are different senses of the word, similar to the common use of "theatre" in AmEng to refer to stage productions and venues for them but "theater" for movie houses. More detailed rationale in the "Threaded discussion" section, to address various side points.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Program for both TV series and computer programs, per the Commonwealth Style Guide. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

That is a good idea, thanks -- Whats new?(talk) 03:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • RfC questions are supposed to be written in a neutral manner and that should apply to the heading as well. However, the heading for this RfC demonstrates a clear bias for one of the options, i.e. "How should we spell program?" instead of "Should we use 'program' or 'programme' when referring to Australian TV articles?" This is inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • For commenters arguing 'both', please note the question asks "...most appropriate for Australian television series." This is not a debate about whether one spelling should be banished for all time in all contexts, only which spelling should be used in relation to Australian television shows for consistency. Many of the 'both' comments may have misunderstood the specific focus of this RfC -- Whats new?(talk) 04:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe the 'both' proponents are aware of instruction creep and seek to avoid it. - Nick Thorne talk 11:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I take your point. Adding other situations as well is no problem, I just don't want generic 'both - do whatever' votes without specifying which one to use for TV matters, given the point of beginning the RfC and the page it is taking place on. -- Whats new?(talk) 11:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I think my examples were quite specific, and definitive to the current question? Aoziwe (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
without specifying which one to use for TV matters - This page deals only with naming conventions for television programmes, hence the title "Naming conventions (television)". The original thread that lead to this RfC was about a television programme and the RfC question asks is the spelling "program" or "programme" most appropriate for Australian television series? so any result here can only apply to television. The "Both" responses seem clear to me. I really don't see the issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Aoziwe: You did address the specific issue - is was a general comment not directed at anyone, just a ntoe for commenting going forward. @AussieLegend: I don't disagree about the location and original point of the RfC, but if other editors want to discuss spelling in other situations, there is no issue in doing that either, and perhaps clearing up some other cases. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I said "both", and I think the most sensible solution is an WP:ENGVAR style one. Use whichever one you like for new pages, be consistent within individual articles, and don't change the spelling from one to the other in existing articles. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
I would personally prefer consistency across all articles in relation to Australian television. Interestingly, in reading through ENGVAR and following through to MOS:SPELL, it specifically states "In Australia, program is widespread in all contexts" so this may have been decided previously. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that standardisation and "consistency" of this nature is a solution looking for a problem. Both are in widespread use within Australia (except where it concerns computer code, where "program" is the universal standard), both provoke strong emotional reactions from partisans on either side of the debate, and I don't see what's to be gained really in poking the bear by changing one spelling to the other. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
I think consistency is useful when it can be achieved, especially when, as many editors have demonstrated in this discussion so far, that Australian reliable sources show a strong preference for the seven letter spelling in the television context. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
A nose count of the above poll so far is 6-4, which is hardly a "strong preference". Again, I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve here beyond vague assertions that it is "useful". How so? Is it worth the inevitable drama? Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
I think you misread my response. I said reliable sources have a strong preference. I'm aiming to achieve a consensus going forward, and yes I think consistency is worth the effort (I wouldn't describe it as a drama). -- Whats new?(talk) 06:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, I don't think 6-4 is a correct nose count - two of the "both" !votes specifically say that "program" should be used for TV/radio, which is what this discussion is about, so a more accurate figure would be 8-2. Frickeg (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Do I need remind anyone that Wikipedia doesn't make determinations based on nose counts? --AussieLegend (✉) 06:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Merely correcting the record. Frickeg (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll concede Frickeg's point, but I still maintain that the sources generally say that either is acceptable even if some prefer "program" in this context. I still don't think that a good reason has been advanced for doing this, especially when there are a lot of other unambiguously incorrect spelling choices out there that are crying out for attention. Because I don't want to monopolise the conversation, I'll bow out now to give some others a chance to speak up. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC).
Or maybe the 'both' proponents are aware of instruction creep and seek to avoid it - That's a very valid point made by Nick Thorne that has been overlooked (or perhaps deliberately ignored?). Looking at the existing instruction we avoid instruction creep by not specifying spelling for any country. The instruction simply says "For all other programs use (TV program) or (TV programme) according to common usage in the originating country", which is more than adequate. If we specify for Australia, then we need to specify for all countries, which is unacceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that what we're doing here, though - determining "common usage" for Australia? I am certainly not arguing for an actual change to the guideline's text, and I don't think anyone else is either. My contention, and I think others' too, is that "programme" is not exactly in "common usage" anymore but more in the vein of a minor (albeit accepted) variant, at least in this context. Frickeg (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
And this RfC is attempting to determine what the common usage is in a particular originating country - in this case Australia. Right now, it is unclear in some editor's minds, so I began this process to clear it up -- Whats new?(talk) 00:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
This discussion is not "attempting to determine what the common usage is", which would be an exercise in WP:OR; it's attempting to determine WP editorial consensus on which spelling to use. Individuals may base their answer to the question on their rede of what common usage is. OR within one's own head in formulating an opinion on a talk page is permissible; admins may consider how much evidence there is (and how strong it is) for the position when assessing the results of the discussion and coming to a close. I.e., WP doesn't determine what is or is not really the most common usage in .au; it determines what WP is or isn't going to prefer (if anything), based on editors' expressed views on the matter, which in turn are based on various factors over which we have no control outside our own views. Usage patterns are often not the only or even the most important issue in such discussions; MOS:COMMONALITY and (in other contexts, like choosing between "9am" and "9 am") readability and ambiguity are often more important. When it comes to "dictionary matters", the best approach is usually to look at current (last 10 years or so) dictionaries of the ENGVAR in question, and see which spelling they list first (or only). But for AuEng, this is just supporting evidence, because there are very few AuEng-specific dictionaries (or styles guides, another RS for usage); the sample size is too small to mean much, and dictionaries are mostly traditionalist and prescriptive anyway (i.e. resistant to and slow to accept changes that the public is already running with, with very few exceptions). All this may be beside the point, since this matter has previously been discussed, in favor of program, at the Au. noticeboard. That's a consensus, and while consensus can change, there has to be a showing that it actually has changed, or the status quo of the current consensus remains in force. That's a general, site-wide WP principle.

PS: I said in the !voting section, "don't use a longer word or version of a word unless it seems necessary". An example of "necessary" in this sense is WP's consensus to use the internationally standardized spelling aluminium at the article on the element and in other chemistry contexts, even if AmEng aluminum is permissible in articles on baseball bats, American aircraft, an other articles in North American ENGVARs. Another example would be labelled and travelling in BrEng, and most other Commonwealth English, articles, because the North American labeled and traveling spellings are not used with any frequency in most other dialects, other than those strongly influenced by AmEng, like Philippine, Okinawan, and that of the US Virgin Islands. An inverse example might be that we don't convert typical -ise Commonwealth spellings to -ize (Oxford spelling as well as NAm spelling), despite MOS:COMMONALITY, because the -ize form is rare in those ENGVARs, primarily used by academics.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I think most editors and quoted sources appear to favour program but some editors appear strident in their opposition. Unless there's any further comment/debate or another editor does so sooner, I'll request closure at the Admin's noticeboard -- Whats new?(talk) 01:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Why not just leave it for the whole 30 days? There's no hurry, especially as the outcome doesn't have an effect on the MOS itself. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, but 30 days isn't a requirement, and given discussion had halted with what I would call a pretty clear result, I equally don't see why it can't be closed if there's no new points of view -- Whats new?(talk) 06:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(television)/Archive_12&oldid=1142664351"