Talk:Millennium (miniseries)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Remake or Re-edit

I don’t get it, is this a remake or more a re-edit? Jikybebna (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Name change

Apparently everything must be done with consensus. Regardless. I'm willing to be humble enough to look fpr consensus. I propose moving it with (2010 TV series) or (Swedish TV series) disambiguator to help have a more distinction. Miniseries is quite vague. User:Robsinden used WP:NCTV for reverting back, however it seems miniseries are .TV series and does not conflict with it. So I don't see why miniseries must be used as a distinction separate from tv series.Lucia Black (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I approved your change of article title yesterday to Millennium (2010 TV series) -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Moving this to Millennium (2010 TV series) would involve moving Millennium (TV series) to Millennium (1996 TV series), and I don't think you'd get support for that. WP:NCTV has a guideline for this and it thinks that "miniseries" (actually "TV miniseries") is sufficient enough disambiguation. Hatnotes at the top of each page would suffice in case the reader is at the wrong place. However, if you are to proceed along these lines, I'd suggest you following the correct procedure (WP:RM#Requesting multiple page moves), so that readers and editors of all affected pages (specifically Millennium (TV series)) would be correctly notified. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Rob Sinden (talk), I would have thought that your suggestion of moving Millennium (TV series) to Millennium (1996 TV series), is a worthwhile change too. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying I think it's unnecessary, and that current disambiguation is sufficient. But I would suggest that this move discussion is handled in the correct manner, as it affects other pages as I demonstrated. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

not true. Its not necessary to move the previous tv series with the year added simply because its added to this one.Lucia Black (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Lucia Black (talk), I agree with you on this point. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Completely true I'm afraid. I'd read up on disambiguation if I were you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation. Even if you don't go by the year, and instead go by nationality or some other method, both articles would have to have additional disambiguation. I think it's good enough where it is. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

sorry but that still does not prove that both have to share the same disambiguation. Several disambiguations of the same album end up differently. You need to look at disambiguation more carefully because it does not say both have to share the same disambiguation, just adding more options.Lucia Black (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well the discussion has been old. Its a weak consensus, but consensus nontheless. So is it enough to re-move this?Lucia Black (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No - there's no consensus. As I mentioned, you need to nominate it properly at WP:RM#Requesting multiple page moves, as it affects Millennium (TV series) also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. you just want it to.Lucia Black (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that, but please stay civil. I've asked for further input from interested parties. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It does not affect other articles. Nothing specifically saying each article just share the same. Also, this discussion s becoming rather bossy. Don't believe we need request because the article does not affect the other article. If you think t does, then you do it. I already mentioned that naming conventions does not specifically say both articles need to change just because one is more specific.Lucia Black (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You're saying we've reached consensus, when we haven't. To my understanding of the disambiguation rules, you would need additional disambiguation. It's not quite so clear on the TV page, but the guideline for films is crystal clear, and the one for books is fairly clear on additional disambiguation. It defeats the point of disambiguation if you only disambiguate further one of the TV series. If this move had been requested properly in the first place, then there may have been more input by now. I've placed a note on the TV project page, and at the other TV series called Millennium to see what other people think. Let's see what their input is. --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We got a third opinion, and usually ti asked to obtain a third whenever there's simply two. Granted ts a weak consensus but consensus nonetheless. The wording is vague on WP:NCBK but i don't believe this saying what WP:NCF is. Granted, films naming convention does ask for it specifically, but that one is more obvious reason, as many films share the same name and are remade.Lucia Black (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A third opinion is not necessarily consensus. It's not a vote. Let's see what other opinions we get. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm against this move because to me there is a difference between a "TV series" and a "miniseries". A "TV series" is an on-going series that (traditionally) does not have a defined end (at least not from the start). A "miniseries" is something that only lasts a few episodes and is not intended to be continued afterward. If this turned into a regular series then I would be ok with it, but I think that renaming it to "TV series" sends an inaccurate message of what it was.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• comment both however are TV series. just one is more specific. A square is a quadrilateral but not all quadrilaterals are square. replace quadrilateral with "TV series" and square with "miniseries". They're both serial and they're both TV. Too subjective to say one is a series and the other is not. that and miniseries is incredibly vague. However if the naming convention changed to TV miniseries, then "maybe". But other than that, there's no real difference. Just one is shorter than the other.Lucia Black (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

With the square/quadrilateral analogy, you're contradicting your earlier argument regarding requirements for additional disambiguation here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

grasping the straws.Lucia Black (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, the analogy only fits for this situation. it does not apply to any other. Someone claims one s not the other and vice versa, however that is. Don't switch the argument around based on an analogy that does not even apply to supposed contradiction. In fact, look at ti another way and t could support what i'm saying.Lucia Black (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not in favour of the move, as I think that a TV miniseries is sufficiently different enough from a TV series to not be the same thing, and therefore disambiguated sufficiently, but I respect the fact that you don't share this opinion. However to better illustrate what I mean regarding the additional disambiguation, and your quadrilateral/square analogy, look at it this way. You have two TV series. For the sake of the example, lets call them Example. One was made in 1996, the other was made in 2010. Example (TV series) could equally apply to either TV series. Say you have two shapes, a square and a diamond. Example (quadrilateral) could equally apply to either shape. In these, both need to be disambiguated differently, otherwise someone looking for the 2010 series may end up at Example (TV series) which shows the 1996 series, when the 2010 series is sitting at Example (2010 TV series), and someone looking for the square may end up at Example (quadrilateral) which shows the diamond, with the square sitting at Example (square). In these cases, Example (TV series) and Example (quadrilateral) should point to Example (disambiguation) (assuming Example has a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), and this page should include Example (1996 TV series), Example (2010 TV series), Example (diamond) and Example (square). Hope that that's clarified the disambiguation situation for you. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really, the point was that they're both the same thing generally, just one is based on length, but both still have a series of episodes and both are TV program/special/film. The point was "mini series are TV series"H however one is more specific (and vague). Miniseries in general is a vague term, despite having a definition. they are both series and they are/were both on TV. There is always the "see also" and lets suppose one is called. It doesn't even have to be the year. (Swedish TV series) can still apply without so much worry of affecting the other unless you think (American TV series) has to be applied to the other. It is not necessary to say you respect my opinion, unless you making it see like you don't. lets just not grasp straws here. an analogy was meant for one thing and one thing only, to say they are both generally the same.Lucia Black (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What I was trying to illustrate was that though we may disagree regarding whether a TV series and a TV miniseries are significantly different enough from each other, whatever the outcome we do need to disambiguate things properly. If one was moved to "Swedish TV series", then yes, the other would need to move to "American TV series" or similar. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really a necessity n general, t's ore the supposed proper way of dong it. i say supposed because not all nang conventions have it, but lets say it does? then what? it wont be a worthwhile change. They're different from each-other, however where it matters most, s where they have in common and that is "TV" and "series".Lucia Black (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

At least i would say change to (TV mini series) as it is also a coon term used (and might i add distniguishable). something less vague.Lucia Black (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier "(TV miniseries)" is the preferred term at WP:NCTV, but I wasn't going to move it while the discussion was taking place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You could've done it regardless. its called collaborating.Lucia Black (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's poor etiquette to move a page when there is already a move discussion taking place. However, if you're happy with Millennium (TV miniseries), then so am I as per WP:NCTV. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I meant you could've proposed that aswell. and ok.Lucia Black (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Miniseries" is sufficient as a title and is more accurate, I feel, to the short, self-contained nature of such a show. "TV series" generally implies one with a season-based structure (for instance I wouldn't call Coronation Street a "TV series" either). I see no problem with Millennium (2010 TV series) redirecting here, in the off-chance that it would be used as a search term, but miniseries is definitely the nomenclature I feel is most appropriate for the title. That being said I do have a vested interest in not having to go back over the articles I've written for the other Millennium to fix all the newly-ambiguous links. GRAPPLE X 16:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• comment the proposal has changed "TV miniseries". And miniseries n general is vague. we dont name TV series as just "Series".Lucia Black (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)