Talk:Hole in One (Only Fools and Horses)

BBC: Sitcoms Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by BBC Sitcoms Task Force.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: British / Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved. Duja► 16:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hole in One → Hole in One (TV episode) — some people would be confused between two different articles "Hole in One" and "Hole in one" Gh87 02:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support - then this existing page should be redirected to Hole in one. BlueValour 04:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - except, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Episode articles, the new name should be Hole in One (Only Fools and Horses). --Serge 21:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Hole in One (Only Fools and Horses) per Serge. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I also vote to redirect Hole in One to Hole in one, not to the dab page. A search for "Hole in One" will be most likely for Hole in one, whether there's a capital O or not. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hole in One should be a redirect to the disambiguation page, no to Hole in one, though. Hole in one (disambiguation) should link to Hole in One (Only Fools and Horses). Distinctions based on capitalization should not be the only differentiator in article titles. Nohat 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Hole inOne (Only Fools and Horses) per Serge, and support Nohat's disambiguation/redirect recommendation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Hole in One (Only Fools and Horses). The title Hole in One (Only Fools and Horses episode) would be good too, but it should stay consistent with the way that the other disambiguated episodes in this series are named. As for the leftover title of Hole in One, it should be redirected to the disambiguation page. --Elonka 07:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Comment Hole in One (Only Fools and Horses) is the way current televison guideline say it should be disambiguated, however, the disambiguation may still be unnecessary as hole in one is not a proper noun and people probably won't be looking for it at Hole in One. Basically, I'm saying keep it here or move it to Hole in One (Only Fools and Horses), this is enough of a boarderline where I don't really care which. If this page is moved a agree with changing the redirect to the golf article. Jay32183 22:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered that too but there is such a huge disparity between the two... If a new Wikipedia reader didn't know about the WP proper noun rule and typed "Hole in One" in the search and a TV episode article came up, they'd be baffled! I would be anyway... —Wknight94 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just thought the point should be made. I won't argue for it or against a move to Hole in One (Only Fools and Horses). Jay32183 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whoa, whoa, whoa! I created hole in one (disambiguation) because there are more than two existing articles. Haven't you forgotten Hole in One (pricing game)? --Gh87 02:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it's probably best to have Hole in One redirect to the dab page after the page move. Unless some one has a serious problem with it. Jay32183 03:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm against it. For both "Hole in One" and "Hole in one", it seems far more likely that the reader is searching for Hole in one. I'm not a big fan of redirects to dab pages in general - but esp. when a search differing only by the capitalization of a single letter leads somewhere else. I'd find that confusing now and I've been here over a year - I'd think a newbie would be very confused. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll agree with that. -- JHunterJ 11:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, as above Hole in One should redirect to Hole in one. BlueValour 16:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now the {{merge}} is added in both articles: "Hole in One" and disambiguation page. --Gh87 08:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you proposing to merge the disambiguation page and the article about the Only Fools and Horses episode? Please remove the merge tag from the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ 11:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the merge tags which are irrelevant to this discussion. BlueValour 16:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.