Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

General query, re: article title The Goldbergs (broadcast series)

Any idea what disambiguation term The Goldbergs (broadcast series) should be moved to? I would like to do a WP:RM for this one, but I don't even know what disambiguation term to suggest. The issue here was that it was a radio program from 1929–1946, before it was a TV series from 1949–1956. One approach might be to split the article into The Goldbergs (radio series) and The Goldbergs (1949 TV series), but I'm not sure that's the best approach here... Anyway, looking for any ideas on how to handle this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Tricky one. I definitely am not a fan of (broadcast series) so it should be changed. Right now I see a couple of possibilities:

• (radio/TV series) or (radio & TV series) - I would use these if the TV show was a direct continuation of the story presented on radio. If instead the TV series was effectively a "reboot" (even with most of the same cast) then perhaps the article should be split into (radio series) and (1949 TV series). We'd need someone who knows the topic to tell us which is the case.
• Alternatively, and the one I am leaning to, is to rename this The Goldbergs (franchise) since there is a radio series, a TV series, and two movies, and a musical based upon these characters. This would allow the article to remain mostly as is, with sections for the radio and TV series and perhaps merging back in the movie and musical articles which are mostly stubs which repeat a lot of the information already in this article.

Just my thoughts. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Helpful... I agree that am also not a fan of the current "(broadcast series)" disambig. I suppose another possibility might be The Goldbergs (series), but The Goldbergs (franchise) might be better(?...). Anyone else have any thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer The Goldbergs (radio series) as that is the primary topic of the article. Other projects are extensions and derivatives of the radio series. Franchise implies a bit more balance between the related projects and sort of leaves the 2013 TV series hanging as it is not a part of that. The current redirect at The Goldbergs (1949 TV series) is a sufficient search item for that particular item and could be a location for a split if one is desired here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I can live with that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The article is split pretty evenly between the radio and the TV series'. It certainly includes a lot of material that is outside of the radio series. The 2013 has no bearing on this topic - its unrelated. As it stands right now, it falls in line with articles devoted to other franchises. I think the best strategy is to treat it as such, and let future editors split off the radio, TV, etc. versions into separate articles if they see fit. -- Netoholic @ 05:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

(series) is even more ambiguous and outside of guidelines than (broadcast series) is, so I'd strike that possibility. -- Netoholic @ 05:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The more we talk of this the less I think we should change from the original disambiguation. It does seem to be the most descriptive even if it doesn't strictly follow the conventions. Also I was looking at the inbounds and don't look forward to fixing them on a move. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If this is done, it's going to be done as a WP:RM – whoever closes the WP:RM is supposed to take care of all of that. (That's why I don't close RM's myself – it basically requires WP:AWB-access to do them right...) Anyway, "(broadcast series)" is simply not a valid disambig. term that is covered by any guideline that I can see – this needs to be moved to something else. The only question is to what. I'm inclined to just go with "(franchise)" as the suggestion for the RM, because other options look they'll require an article split as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Horton Hears a Who! (TV special)

So, "TV special" is a non-standard disambiguation term. Would "TV program" suffice as the preferred disambiguator here, as this was a one-time TV special, and not a continuing "TV series"? Or do we need to use something else?... The disambiguation page only has two other entries, so this shouldn't require much finessing. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think "TV program" would be okay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I found a few more articles using "TV special" and one using "television special". I know "TV/television special" is used commonly in the industry to refer to one-time programs, whereas "TV/television program" usually implies something that airs multiple episodes. I'm just not sure if there are enough examples to justify making this part of the guideline or not. It may muddy the waters further. -- Netoholic @ 02:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I didn't realize there were so many articles disambiguated with "TV special" – looks like there's roughly a dozen (at least). With that in mind, I think I'm likely to leave Horton Hears a Who! (TV special) where it is. (However, I think it would be a good idea to create redirects at "X (TV program)" for all of these...) However, 25 Years (television special) is just wrong, no matter how you cut it – I'll likely move that one to 25 Years (TV special) in the next day or so. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me toss out another idea: I was checking out Category:Animated television specials and saw some classics labeled in the form Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (film). While these may not be "feature-length", calling them films does have some appeal and doesn't create an extra category "TV special" which we would likely have trouble defining. In any case, we certainly have a very inconsistent approach to a lot of these. -- Netoholic @ 06:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

MOS:US

Now that "U.S." (with periods) is deprecated as an abbreviation for the United States as per MOS:US, can we change the naming conventions for TV articles so that we specify using "US" and not "U.S." in terms of disambiguation by country? I don't mean we need to go through every single article that is disambiguated by "U.S." and rename those (in fact the style guide entry says not to do that); I just mean I don't think we should be promoting the use of a deprecated acronym for new article titles. There's also the fact that MOS:US specifies using "US" in articles where other national abbreviations without periods are used (e.g. UK) and while mixing abbreviation conventions across article titles in the same project is not the same thing as including "U.S." and "UK" in the same article, there's something to be said for the consistency we get if disambiguate by country and get: "Blank (US TV series)" and "Blank (UK TV series)".

Thoughts and opinions? —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of that MOS:US section, I am dubious of it. Unfortunately, the main citation of the Chicago Manual of Style is disappointing as there are several examples of it being inappropriate for WP's purposes in some areas. In short, we make our own style guide, and that US/U.S. change was made only last month and hasn't survived a genuine RFC on the matter. It could be reversed or change any day. As such, I oppose any change here at the moment. Far better that we delay and be wrong, than move ahead and be wrong. -- Netoholic @ 08:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Netoholic. I couldn't find the RfC on that issue, but I don't believe it was heading towards a confirmation of using "US" when I last checked it. I for one am on the militant side of "U.S." being correct in any case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

telenovelas

It's come to my attention that we have a lot of articles using (... telenovela) as disambiguation. Per our current guideline, they should all (?) use (TV series). Any comments on this before I place in a mass rename request? -- Netoholic @ 12:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, "TV series" and "telenovela" is not the same, and I think that if the term "telenovela" is used as a disambiguation, it would be a little help for users who watch "telenovelas", as a case in point. what this helps a lot would be for example in "Victoria (TV series)" and "Victoria (telenovela)]]", one is a miniseries, while the other is a "telenovela". It's good that the rules say something else, but the term "telenovelas" has been used for many years, not only in this wikipedia, but also in the Spanish version. And maybe you can defend this point since I edit many articles of telenovelas; but that gender exists in all Latin America and Brazil. It is something different from a "tv series". I do not disagree that this is changed, but you also have to take into account how the sources cite these programs. For example, in the telenovela Lo que la vida me robó, all the sources cite this program as a telenovela, not as a TV series.--Philip J Fry / talk 21:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

If "soap opera" is not used as a disambiguation term (and it's not), then "telenovela" certainly shouldn't be. I'm not 100% on board for eliminating the use of "telenovela" as a potential disambiguator, but Netoholic is 100% correct that about 99% of these articles would be better served by using "TV series" as their disambiguator – e.g. there is not a reason in the world that Violetta (telenovela) shouldn't be at Violetta (TV series) instead... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that what we're talking about here is just a naming convention. No one is proposing to change the article leads, no one is proposing changing the categories - we're not eliminating the telenovela as a genre of television. The reason we have a naming convention is to prevent duplicate articles and to aid navigation. Right now in this guideline we only have one diambiguator for long-term fictional serialized shows, and that is "TV series". If we were to start splitting that up into genres, we wouldn't even start with telenovela. Genres like sitcoms, procedurals, soap operas, reality shows, etc would all come way before telenovelas as they are in far greater use. -- Netoholic @ 22:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

somewhat urgent need for comments on telenovelas

Seeing as there was no further comment about this issue, I had begun the process of correcting a number of mis-disambiguated telenovelas. My efforts have been all but reversed completely by a cadre of invested editors who believe (either through inertia or tradition) that the (telenovela) disambiguation is a valid exception to WP:NCTV, even though that exception is not documented here. I'm not sure what the next step should be, as even one particular admin has used his powers to enforce this non-documented exception. -- Netoholic @ 17:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You can start an RfC, or a bulk move discussion of several articles, to gauge what the consensus actually is. Then, depending on how that goes, we can update the guideline so that it's clear, because it isn't currently.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The only update necessary would be to add (telenovela) as an exception IF consensus was shown to support it. Currently, there is NO such exception. I object to there being an exception, and it is supporters of that exception that need to move ahead with an RFC. -- Netoholic @ 18:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you're proposing to change the status quo of hundreds of existing articles. The convention is established in its usage, not in whether an exception is explicitly listed on the guideline page. Mass changing of the actual titles of articles requires an RfC or a mass RM.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:INCDAB at Vikings (TV series)

Please see discussion at Talk:Vikings (TV series)#Requested move 19 December 2017. --woodensuperman 07:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Telenovela again

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Is "telenovela" a suitable disambiguator? for wider discussion. --woodensuperman 09:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Telenovela disambiguation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

• There is No Consensus as to any broad outcome and the arguments on both sides of the debate balance out.
• As to articles which are currently using the telenovela-disambiguation system, (as a consequence of either some unilateral move which has not been yet reverted or has managed to gain a local consensus), they shall be subject to the current status-quo.If anybody wishes to change it, he/she may float a new RM and wait, pending it's closure.The closure shall be solely based on the merits of that particular RM (which may very well consist of restatement(s) of the points made out in this RFC).
• In articles that are yet to be touched by the dispute and where there was a generation of local consensus against use of the telenovela-disambiguation system, any such RM may be closed early, courtesy the non-generation of any definite consensus at this RFC, until and unless a future RFC manges to incorporate a change in the guideline.

Signed by Winged Blades^Godric 14:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Amended at 16:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Some extended discussions about the closure may be viewed at this thread.Winged Blades^Godric 14:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Is "telenovela" acceptable to use in disambiguating articles on programs of this type? In other words, is Name (telenovela), Name (2017 telenovela), etc. acceptable to disambiguate a series from other topics of the same name?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Telenovelas are simply a minor genre of TV series. We do not have any genre-specific disambiguators for other genres of episodic, narrative television, such as sit-coms, Police procedurals, soap operas, documentaries, variety shows etc. - all which are much more numerous than telenovelas. Other media guidelines like WP:NCFILM, WP:NCBOOK, or WP:NCMUSIC do not use any genre disambiguation. The strongest reason we avoid genre disambiguators is because genres are such a fuzzy thing to define. We are always better off using the most broad, clear descriptor across a subject area - in this case (TV series) suffices. --Netoholic @ 19:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This is already widespread practice on Wikipedia, as can be seen in Category:American telenovelas, Category:Argentine telenovelas, Category:Colombian telenovelas, etc. The use of this disambiguation has found consensus in the recent RM at Talk:La Venganza (2002 telenovela) and previous RMs like Talk:Simplemente María (2015 telenovela)#Requested move 12 November 2015. The guideline invites the use of alternative disambiguators to (TV series) when it's clearer for readers. However, there have been RMs that moved away from "(telenovela)" so we need to get a consensus one way or another here and reflect that in the guideline's wording for consistency.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Categories have no bearing on article naming (see Category:American television soap operas). We are not eliminating the genre nor is any change to categories, article text, or templates being implied. The guideline does not at all "invites the use" of any alternative to (TV series) - we only add year/country to TV series. Those recent RMs tend to be dominated by fans of this genre who are actively misreading or misunderstanding this guideline as written today. -- Netoholic @ 19:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Lol. It's the articles *in* the categories that are important, and many of them use "(telenovela)".--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose (in all but rare cases) – in 99% of cases, there is no compelling reason that these articles shouldn't be at "TV series" rather than "telenovela" (e.g. Violetta (telenovela)). (Note that we at NCTV do not currently use "soap opera" to disambiguate English-language TV series...) There may be some extreme "edge" cases where using "telenovela" will aid in disambiguating from other TV series with the same title. But these situations will be exceptions, and will be rare. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support TV series and telenovela are different formats, not genres, as commonly used and don't really mean the same thing to the people who care. Given the level of resistance to changing (telenovela) to (TV series) and widespread usage of (telenovela), I think this is a reasonable disambiguator to be permitted for use. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Meh (at best) – daily telenovelas/soap operas are a sub-genre of "TV series", not a completely separate genre/format. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • What quality makes it a "format" not a genre? They are created to run only a short time (per telenovela "tell one self-contained story, typically within the span of a year or less")? Several TV series have planned limited runs or are cancelled creating a short run. They are "intense and fast-paced"? Many series are. Are you implying that the language spoken or region aired has something to do with defining the format? If that were true, then it wouldn't be valid because a "format" would by definition be agnostic to such considerations. -- Netoholic @ 19:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Genre is the type of story being told, independent of the medium. Format is how that story is presented. Drama is a genre. Novel, film, play, serial radio and television are formats for presenting the story. TV series can cover cover pretty much any multi-part story being told in segments on television but in common expectation TV series implies a somewhat open ended program that runs until cancelled, not closed run multi chaptered limited length stories. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Under WP:NCTV#Series television we have an example of Planet Earth (TV series) - this is a limited length show. Are you saying this should be renamed Planet Earth (telenovela) ? -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Given the intro says "Planet Earth is a 2006 British television series" calling it a TV series seems to be how people describe it. When the intro says "Violetta is an Argentine telenovela" calling Violetta a (telenovela) might be better, particularly when the people involved with writing the articles want to call it that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
          • It would be just as easy to change that to "Violetta is an Argentine television series presented in telenovela format..." There's no need for the disambiguator there to be anything other than "TV series", as it is for the other 90% of TV series that have continuing storylines. Really this is no different than "drama" vs. "comedy", neither of which are used as disambiguator. Again, even "soap opera" is not used under NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
            • Sure, it would be easy to change to calling it a (TV series) and that would be fine too. I am basically supporting permitting (telenovela) when local consensus for an article wants to call it that. (TV series) preferred by default otherwise. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Netoholic. (TV program) or (TV series) should suffice. If (telenovela) comes in, what's to stop (reality show) or (documentary). Then as pointed out, is a show that follows a subject fall into reality or documentary (or even factual) - best to be broad. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose; even Spanish Wikipedia doesn't do this. It's overdisambiguation (in non-English), a weird would-be exception for no good reason, prone to debate and confusion (genres are fluid, and not all editors or sources agree on what qualifies as being within what genre, primarily, entirely, or at all), and a can of worms (would inspire demands for more genre disambiguation, like "(reality show)" and "(death metal band)" and "(action film)" and so on).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC); revised: 18:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Telenovela and TV series are totally different genres. This is something that has been used for several years, including Wikipedia in Portuguese and Spanish, they use "telenovela" as a disambiguation, since in Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil and the United States, they are well known. It would be easier for readers to find the articles if they use the disambiguation "telenovela" and not "TV series", because it confuses a lot especially for those who follow this type of dramas, since Telemundo, Televisa and Univision are currently producing series and will be It is necessary to clarify this. Well, a simple case would be "Atrapada" which is a telenovela, while "Atrapada (TV series)" is currently being produced, which is a series because sources cite it that way.--Philip J Fry / talk 00:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• While it may be prevalent to use (telenovela) in those languages, the Spanish Wikipedia naming convention at es:WP:PELI specifies to use only (programa de televisión) as the disambiguation for any television program. Those telenovela articles are also not abiding that project's naming conventions, either. -- Netoholic @ 01:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. A telenovela is still a TV series, and is not a sufficient disambiguator on its own as we don't disambiguate by genre. Look at the mess we have with TV series named "Victoria": Victoria (2007 telenovela); Victoria (Mexican telenovela); Victoria (TV series). There is no WP:CONSISTENCY here, and as either telenovela could claim the "TV series" disambiguator the British TV series should not be at Victoria (TV series), which should point to a disambiguation page. These need to be tidied up, and they each need to use "TV series" plus an additional disambiguator (i.e. Victoria (Mexican TV series), Victoria (UK TV series), etc). The example of Atrapada is also a problem, as both Atrapada and Atrapada (TV series) are TV series, whether they are telenovelas or not. The "(telenovela)" disambiguator does not distinguish apart from a TV series, so it's pretty useless, except in the rare example where further disambiguation may be required outside of the additional disambiguation guidelines. For the record, I also don't think we should be using "miniseries" as a disambiguator for the same reason. --woodensuperman 12:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I've just moved Victoria (TV series) to Victoria (UK TV series)... --woodensuperman 13:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This RFC has not yet concluded, thus a WP:CONSENSUS has not been formed, so the move has been reverted. No clear notification was apparently posted to the talk pages of either the Television WikiProject or Television Method of Style. -- Alex^TW 14:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the RFC. The further disambiguation is clearly needed! --woodensuperman 14:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Your personal opinion has been noted; please gain WP:CONSENSUS for it, preferably through a requested move discussion on the article's talk page. -- Alex^TW 14:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion, it's written in the guidelines. See WP:INCDAB. Anyway, RM now in place. --woodensuperman 14:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Call a spade a spade. If a topic is identified and categorised as as a telenovela then we should also disambiguate it as such. This appears to match current practice.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Why? I agree with SMcCandlish – this would make for a weird exception, with absolutely no rational justification, especially when we don't even do the same for English-language soap operas. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I don't really understand your question. The justification is that we are calling it what it is. Normally if the lede of an article says something like X is a Y, it makes sense to disambiguate the article in question as X (Y). Almost all our telenovela articles say they're telenovelas in the lede, so why do you want to disambiguate them as "TV series"? You're not helping readers with that disambiguator.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru: The issue is that we don't current disambiguate based on "drama", "comedy" or even "soap opera" (all of which will also be listed in the lede at TV series articles), so why are we creating a special "carve out" for a genre that's not even an English-language "format". Again, why are we doing this for "telenovela" when we don't currently disambiguate with "soap opera"? Doing so makes no sense. Every single one of these – "drama", "comedy", "soap opera" and "telenovela" are all "television series". We currently don't disambiguate by "subformats" of television series, and we shouldn't start. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

But we already started. We started years ago. Most telenovelas are disambiguated as such, as noted above. To move them all to "TV series" would be a retrograde step, just to conform with a guideline which doesn't really help readers in this situation. The disambiguator "telenovela" is a better one than "TV series" in my opinion, and you haven't given me a valid reader-centric reason why that isn't the case. The fact there may be dubious edge cases doesn't really cut it for me either. Most of them are clear-cut, and we already determined them to be telenovelas by their categorization and identification in the lede. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This is akin to an WP:ARTICLEAGE argument in AfD – because it's "been around a long time" is not a valid reason to continue with the practice. A subset of editors decided to disambiguate this way a long time ago, likely without giving a second though to NCTV. That's irrelevant – a bad practice is a bad practice. Besides – no one is arguing that redirects at "[Article title] (telenovela)" should be deleted: we're only saying that the article's primary disambiguation be at "TV series", as it is for 95% of all other TV series articles. If people want to maintain or create a bunch redirects at "[Article title] (telenovela)", they are free to have at it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – should be TV series, as per many people above's arguments. I also agree with Woodensuperman that we should probably dump "miniseries" too. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Considering the confusion among the terms "miniseries", "limited series", and "event series" from the general public, the entertainment press, and the network honchos, I would fully support dropping "miniseries" as a disambiguation term as well, yeah! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Hmm, are Taken (TV series) and Taken (miniseries) really sufficiently disambiguated? --woodensuperman 13:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Under current NCTV, yes. If "miniseries" goes as a disambiguator, then no. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per reasons enunciated by User:IJBall and User:SMcCandlish. --Khajidha (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support -- Telenovelafan215 (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per SMcCandlish. Would lead to endless special pleading and wheel warring. James (^talk/_contribs) 23:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support — As per the countries releasing them. In most cases if not all, they are simply referred to as telenovelas, and should remain so. This is because of WP:COMMONALITY. Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 17:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support The articles should be titled as they are advertised as per reliable sources. -- Alex^TW 22:05, 10 December 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.

naming conflict between NCTV and MOS:ANIME at Pokémon (anime)

Please see discussion at Talk:Pokémon (anime)#Requested move 11 January 2018. -- Netoholic @ 07:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Aladdin (animated TV series)

I am pinging Steel1943 here, based on this article move on July 25, 2017 – the edit summary states "...the disambiguator "(TV series)" is currently ambiguous". However, there exists no other television TV series or TV program with the title Aladdin, so it seems to me the article for this animated series should be at simply Aladdin (TV series). Posting here to get the opinion of others at NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(animated ...) was added (or more correctly, kept in) in order only to help reader navigation where there was both a live action TV series and an animated version (ex. Mr. Bean (TV series) vs Mr. Bean (animated TV series)) - very rare. Its not something that was ever meant to be added to all animated shows. To keep with WP:CONCISE, it shouldn't be used when there is only one TV series of a particular name.

Now, this doesn't seem to be the case here. There is Aladdin (Indian TV series) (live action). As such, I am not opposed to keeping things as they are, unless someone can suggest a better solution for these two TV series. -- Netoholic @ 04:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. That didn't come up in a simple search. If that exists, then yes – it's probably best where it is. Should hatnotes be added?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• @IJBall: Looking at what I did, I suppose I meant to retarget the leftover redirect Aladdin (TV series) to Aladdin (disambiguation)#Entertainment as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, but never got around to it and then apparently forgot. Steel1943 (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That disambig. page is a bit of a mess. I'm still wondering if hatnotes on the animated series and Indian series articles might not be a bad idea here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, I doubt very much that people are landing on those two TV series page looking for the other one. Maybe just an {{Other uses}} to point to the disambig page would be enough. I would also fix the incoming links to Special:Whatlinkshere/Aladdin (TV series) though, and repoint that redirect to the disambig page. -- Netoholic @ 05:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the disambiguation be "(US TV series)" and "(Indian TV series)"? I thought we generally disambiguated by country first. If there were a US live-action TV series, then maybe "(animated TV series)" would be better (although then there is always disambiguation by year), but since there's not... —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, but I think with only these two articles, that the current disambigs are the clearest for the readers. The animated film and TV series together were such a international success that it goes a bit beyond one country. I'm sure we'll revisit this if a 3rd TV series happens somewhere, and in that case we'll probably have to switch it up. -- Netoholic @ 07:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Aladdin (U.S. TV series) should be created as a redirect. But I agree with Netoholic arrangement is fine, and doesn't need to be changed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Continued dispute about Vikings (TV series)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Vikings (TV series)#Requested move 13 January 2018.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: I have suggested that perhaps having WP:NCTV call for using "(TV miniseries)" for short-run productions would resolve this kind of problem (though I also said that should be a proposal raised here; an RM on one TV show – especially one with a thick knot of fandom-based bloc voting – isn't a sufficient WP:CONLEVEL to change this guideline).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Guidelines are guidelines, not "laws". You don't need to follow them in 100% of cases, esp. when doing so is likely to confuse are readership more than otherwise. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't need them to follow 100%, there are always rare oddball situations out there,, but this is scenario which is 100% easily solvable using the existing guideline (disambig using year) in a way we have done many, many times. This is simply not a special case in ANY way. Its being obstructed on only procedural and IDONTLIKEIT grounds. -- Netoholic @ 21:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think "(miniseries)" is problematic in itself. Look at Taken (TV series) and Taken (miniseries). Taken (miniseries) is still a TV series. --woodensuperman 09:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguate by genre/style

Would there be any support for adding disambiguation by genre or style to § Additional disambiguation, as with “animated TV series”? For example, (TV sitcom series) or anime. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't. It would be the source of constant massive conflict. Other media NCs ((NCFILM, NCBOOK) don't do genres - I'd wager for this exact same reason. (animated ...) isn't really a genre ("cartoon" or "anime" would be) - its a format. I'll be honest tho, I wouldn't miss "animated" much if we decided to cut it out... its not very highly in use - or more accurately, its misused more than its used properly. Its main purpose was only when there was a TV series and an animated series from the same franchise using the same name. These cases are usually aired in the same country and nearly the same timeframe, so this was just meant to be an extra option. Most modern cases are naturally disambiguated with "X: The Animated Series" (or the like) anyway. -- Netoholic @ 09:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Only in an extremely rare occasion where two TV series were produced with the same title in the same country in the same year and additional disambiguation is required. Allowing disambiguation by genre or style would cause a lot more problems than it would solve. See the discussion regarding "(telenovela)" which highlights some of the problems. For the same reason, I don't really think we should be using "(miniseries)" as a disambiguator. --woodensuperman 09:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Permalinks in case of an archive split: telenovelas, RfC: Telenovela disambiguation. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"(miniseries)" isn't really a persistent problem. Its becoming antiquated (see miniseries, and mostly applies to productions from the 70s-90s. It should never be used prescriptively for more modern things (TV series' that have short runs), I'd never want us to try to come up with a firm definition in this NC. I am fine leaving it in to handle those older things whose sources almost universally use it. -- Netoholic @ 09:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you not think Taken (TV series) vs. Taken (miniseries) is problematic? --woodensuperman 09:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I remember the miniseries, it was advertised and talked about as such. Each episode was "movie-length" (aka 2 hours) which is a strong identifier that its a miniseries under the common understanding. Hatnotes take care of any reader confusion. -- Netoholic @ 09:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

"Miniseries" is a common and individualized term. I've seen it mentioned a few times in unrelated discussions as something "we" shouldn't use, but it seems to be a well-known descriptor and its usage fully accepted on Wikipedia and in public consciousness. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No, Netoholic is right that the use of the term "miniseries" is increasingly problematic because its exact definition has been "diluted" by the creation of the terms "limited series" and "event series". In the 1970s, when you said "miniseries, everybody knew what you're talking about. Now, when some TV media piece uses the term "miniseries", the odds are good that they'll be using the term wrong... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a problem when talking about much older content where the usages in sources was clearer. There are tons of problems trying to apply it to modern shows that are just limited runs. It should never be applied as part of page naming discussions just to resolve a naming conflict. Every page using (miniseries) should also be validly described as such in its lead sentence supported by sources. -- Netoholic @ 15:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget that every miniseries is also a TV series, so it doesn't really help much for fully disambiguating from other TV series. See my Taken example. --woodensuperman 15:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

... or is a miniseries more like a film shown over multiple nights? I've seen them described that way too. A series, after all, is something that could potentially be renewed for additional seasons. Most miniseries, like films, are self-contained, one-off productions. -- Netoholic @ 22:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Roots (1977 miniseries), now that was something. Should it be renamed Roots (TV series)? I don't think that RM would pass, but someone can give it a try to settle the question. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it would need to be Roots (1977 TV series), as there's another series from 2016. But I think this illustrates that "(miniseries)" is pretty redundant. --woodensuperman 08:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I want to know what distinction some of you are drawing between "miniseries", "limited series", "event series", and "limited runs", as these are all exact synonyms to me. They all apply to series that are designed to run for a specified number of episodes over a period no longer than a single season (as opposed to "short run" series that are cancelled earlier than expected). --Khajidha (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This has always been my understanding as well. Miniseries is a word with a definition, regardless of what else a broadcaster might choose to call it. Making up a new term does not invalidate the existing term. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

As for the original question, I a opposed to using genre/style for disambiguation in general, and am super-duper-amazingly-inflexibly-against the use of "anime" in particular. There is no reason to use a Japanese modification of an English word instead of the simple English word. An animated program from Japan is not, just by virtue of being from Japan, some distinct thing that would necessitate using a different word than would be used for an animated program from France, Brazil, South Africa, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree, and am distressed by the number of … (anime) titles and MOS:ANIME’s attempts to supercede the naming-conventions pages. But it’s widespread enough that it seems to be generally accepted, so I was just wondering where consensus was at regarding other such terms. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Please note the guidelines have been updated to discourage this following a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Is "telenovela" a suitable disambiguator? --woodensuperman 10:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you vote in and then close your own RFC that you personally opened? If so, this needs to be followed up on. I've copyedited the changes: We do not ban anything in guidelines, we suggest that they shouldn't happen. Nor is any announcement to any page a requirement, only a courtesy. -- Alex^TW 17:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That's totally inappropriate and Woodensuperman, having been involved in the RfC at Talk:Vikings (2013 TV series)#Requested move 19 December 2017 that was closed by someone who had voted. You don't get to open an RfC, vote in it and then close it. That RfC should be reopened and an uninvolved editor should close it. Furthermore, any changes to this naming convention based on the inappropriate close should be reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot about the closing of the Vikings RFC. For uninvolved editors, Woodensuperman even referenced this incorrect closing themselves thrice (1, 2, 3). -- Alex^TW 18:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The WP:VPP RfC has now been properly closed by an actual an Admin. The revised text can now be added back, subject to any further revisions as per consensus of other editors. It is clear that there is a real consensus against "disambiguating" by genre, in all but exceptional cases, both at WP:VPP and within WP:TV/WP:NCTV, which means any article currently disambiguated by "telenovela" and "anime", etc. should be fair game for WP:RMs proposals from this point forward. (On my end, I'm likely to start off with Violetta (telenovela) when the spirit moves me...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Bleach (anime)#Requested move 25 January 2018 is currently active. -- Netoholic @ 20:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: The RFC was to determine whether or not to use telenovela as a disambiguator. Any changes to this guideline should have been discussed here, as they directly affect this page, so the changes made are not bound by the RFC as it was not the original topic, and can therefore be edited by anyone. The opener of the RFC even said that the changes may require tweaking. -- Alex^TW 21:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I insist that you self-revert your change to the guideline immediately. Any change to a guideline which is controversial like yours should gain consensus - stop edit warring. Firstly, you made substantive changes under the misleading guise of a "copyedit". Second, the intent behind the wording discussed in the RFC was specifically such that genre/format disambig be exceptionally rare, and requiring such RMs to be cross-announced to several project pages including this one are to leverage the experience of people involved in this NC, and to keep such usage rare. -- Netoholic @ 21:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It was the initial changes that were controversial, hence the editing, so using your own argument, that means that all changes need to be reverted back to its original state. Unless it's your own version that needs to be restored? Again, any discussions on changes at the RFC are not binding, and should have been discussed here first for all to view, not just a select few who attempted to hide it away to avoid WP:CONSENSUS. Your intent may have been just that, but we do not ban anything in guidelines, we suggest that they shouldn't happen. Nor is any announcement to any page a requirement, only a courtesy. (dejavu...) -- Alex^TW 21:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Several other editors made tweaks to the RFC wording. Only your specific ones are controversial at the moment. You've already demonstrated that you're willing to vote on RMs in a way which directly is in opposition to the RFC, and the intent of your "copyedit" seems to be to water down the result of that RFC. Self-revert. -- Netoholic @ 22:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The RFC was taken to the wider community to gain a wider view. Changes to articles, guidelines and policies are always taken to the talk pages of those articles, guidelines and policies. Why was it not discussed here? Do you have an answer for that? The only controversy here is the one caused by you and your fellow editors by attempting to sneak your hidden agenda elsewhere. Do you deny not discussing the changes here first?

I didn't affect any result of the RFC, as the RFC was about allowing the disambiguation of telenovela, not the wording of the changes. I recognize that "telenovela" should not (NOTE: should not, not can not) be used. The RFC was never in relation to the changes, hence they can changed as anyone sees fit.

I modified the wording as guidelines do not ban content, which is what you are attempting to do - ban content that you disagree with by saying we can not rather than should not. I am also allowed to vote as I will, I am still allowed to have an opinion, and the RFC concerned telenovelas - see the very title: "Is "telenovela" a suitable disambiguator?". Stop attempting to force your agenda by connecting similar but undiscussed topics. -- Alex^TW 22:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging editors who have commented on the wording in the RFC or edited the section post-RFC - @IJBall:,@Woodensuperman:,@Khajidha:,@SMcCandlish:. AlexTheWhovian has reverted to restore what he called "copyedits" but which actually nerf the intent behind the wording discussed in the RFC. I'll be willing to discuss his concerns, but only after he self-reverts or someone else reverts to the more uncontroversial wording in my last edit. -- Netoholic @ 22:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. No reply. It appears you recognize the error of your ways. Thank you. Hopefully someone can revert all controversial edits, not just the agenda ones. Make sure you're not canvassing, by the way! I'll be interested to see if anyone can reply to anything I brought up above. -- Alex^TW 22:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The RfC close says, and I quote, "Television shows are to be disambiguated with (TV series) and not using the genre or format of the show." That means it goes beyond "telenovela" and covers all diambig'ing-by-genre. That is because the consensus in the RfC is that we shouldn't be diambig'ing by genre at all, quite aside from the "telenovela" issue. That also has been the expressed opinion before that RfC was filed. So, no – it goes beyond just the telenovela issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Barely the issue at hand, but thank you for your opinion. -- Alex^TW 23:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, FTR, I do not object to Alex's changes to the updated wording – MOS are guidelines and shouldn't be absolutely "proscriptive". (There – that's "the issue at hand"!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: The issue at hand, as I see it, is Alex's removal of the direction to crosspost any genre/format disambig RMs to this talk page. The reason to include that is so that editors here can leverage our experience with similar RMs in order to recommend the best genre/format etc to use, and to ensure all efforts has been made to stick to year/country/both when possible. I'm sure you're aware, since you've brought these kinds of weird RMs here before. By not requiring crossposting here, RMs are in a vacuum, where minor fanbases can continue to push for bad disambigs. -- Netoholic @ 02:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

One could argue that a MOS instruction like that is redundant – anything off-the-wall like that should probably be advertised in any case (as I do like to do on my end...). Also, I suspect unusual move requests will generate additional eyes by themselves, and any one of us could simply advertise such an RM to the appropriate boards on our end. So, while I think advertising these kinds of RMs is in and of itself a good idea, and should be encouraged, I'm not convinced that it needs to be included in the MOS – it seems to me that doing so is kind of common sense... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Its definitely common sense among the regulars here, but it was included and written so that editors not usually involved will know where to bring up these instances. We're more "generalist" here, whereas the target audience for that crosspost recommendation would be editors that work in a particular area or genre, reading this guideline for direction. -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Compromise version here. Use active voice like the rest of MoS generally does; this is a guideline, not a "what some people maybe sometimes think about considering" essay. But don't over do it with unnecessary stridency, which is just annoying. PS: It's correct that the RfC was not about "telenovella" in particular; the dispute about that term is what inspired the RfC, but it was generalized, and the intent behind it can be generalized further (e.g. we do not want to see a title like "The Doors (biographical film)", nor "The Hobbit (fantasy film series)" or anything like that, without very good, last-resort reason. I agree it's outside current expectations for openers of RfCs to close them (other than to retract proposals that are snowball opposed), but the consensus was clear, so there's no point being bureaucratic about it. I would advise not doing it in the future, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The truth is that I would like to have another consultation with the community to decide what to do about this issue, because I really do not agree with what they have done here. Well, only few people voted and among those people there are three users who voted against previously, is that correct?.--Philip J Fry / talk 22:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Should mention here, there is a related discussion about “… (anime)” titles over at VPP. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Naming of various Big Brother articles

Hi! I started a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Big Brother about aligning all the various versions and seasons of Big Brother (franchise) with the guidelines of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). I created a table showing all the different various naming conventions currently in use and recommended article names based on my understanding of WP:NCTV and was hoping editors with experience in this area could lend a hand with the conversation. Thank You! ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Notice of RFC closures with regards to (anime) and (telenovela)

An RFC was held at WP:VPP with regards to whether (anime) was a suitable disambiguator. The full discussion and closing statement can be viewed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator?.

This follows a separate RFC on the topic of (telenovelas) which closed with similar results at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#RfC: Is "telenovela" a suitable disambiguator?

As a result, no change to the WP:NCTV guideline is in order, and any television series of the anime or telenovela genres are eligible for to be moved to titles using (TV series). My suggestion is that for any series (i.e. those that clearly aired on television in first run) can probably be moved uncontroversially - with redirects left in place. Some anime series were released direct-to-video, and may need formal WP:RM discussions to determine if they are "TV series" or "films". I would also suggest full RM discussions for any series with a name that conflicts with another TV series and needs WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation. Feel free to crosspost neutral notices of such RMs on this page as well. -- Netoholic @ 12:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Good Behavior (2016 TV series)

Article is currently disambiguated by year. But as Good behaviour (disambiguation) atests, there is no other TV series with this title. (There is, however, another TV series called Goode Behavior, but that is sufficiently disambiguated on its own by its spelling...) In any case, shouldn't this simply be at Good Behavior (TV series), as it is sufficiently disambiguated this way?

Pinging Anthony Appleyard as the admin who got the move request about this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• @IJBall: Some would say that these small spelling differences (UK behaviour / USA behavior, which in common use are alternate spellings of the same word), and case of letters, and suchlike, are not enough difference to disambiguate. People who remember a name in their heads, rather than having it ready in writing, may forget such small spelling differences. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Being that they are both US television series, WP:SMALLDETAILS probably doesn't come into play. If they were unrelated topics like Goode Behavior (TV sitcom) vs. Good Behaviour (a novel), then there is low chance for confusion or typos, but its reasonable to think that between two TV series there might be. Since they are both US shows, then year disambig seems to be the right way to go. I think the solution is to put Goode Behavior at Goode Behavior (1996 TV series) for the same reason the other show is disambig'd. We want that year to show up in search. -- Netoholic @ 07:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's agreed here that WP:SMALLDETAILS does not apply for these two (and, FTR, I think it would in this case, but it's OK if mine is the minority view...), then, yes – Goode Behavior needs to be moved to Goode Behavior (1996 TV series), if we're leaving the 2016 series at Good Behavior (2016 TV series). Does anyone object to doing this – moving Goode Behavior to Goode Behavior (1996 TV series)?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done – as opinion here seems to be that WP:SMALLDETAILS was insufficient in this case, I have moved Goode Behavior to Goode Behavior (1996 TV series). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The move seems rather silly when you consider that Goode Behavior redirects to Goode Behavior (1996 TV series). It seems a case of adding disambiguation for the sake of adding disambiguation. Effectively, nothing has been achieved. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I personally think Goode Behavior and Good Behavior (TV series) should be sufficient on their own (esp. with hatnotes), but that does not seem to be the consensus here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see that consensus and I have to agree with your belief that Goode Behavior and Good Behavior (TV series) should be sufficient on their own. We only add disambiguation when necessary and hatnotes negate the need for that, especially with the existing disambiguation pages that exist. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I've only just realised that there is a 1996 and a 2016 series. Perhaps disambiguation by year is appropriate. However, something really needs to be done with the two redirects as they create a bit of a mess. Perhaps they should be redirected to Good behaviour. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Redirects retargetted to Good behaviour#Television. (But I still think that Goode Behavior and Good Behavior (TV series) would be sufficient in this case with hatnotes...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• To be honest and very frank (as my histmerge request was obliterated), I think the series should revert back to Good Behavior, where it was after the parenthetical "TV series" article was moved. There are no articles titled as such, and the lowercase "behavior" article also redirects. This was stable until Colonel Mayfair got confused, as seen here. There were hatnotes appropriated. — Wyliepedia 08:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• The redirect/hatnote/etc that was at Good Behavior, is now at GoodBehavior, to get it out from under page moves. 2 of its edits contain a request to history-merge in Good Behavior (2016 TV series). But GoodBehavior has only 5 edits, all redirects or histmerge requests, and nothing that would belong with page Good Behavior (2016 TV series)'s contents. So I was minded to treat this request as a plain move request; then I wondered how long the TV series would stay in high place and how long it would likely run. But good behavior and bad behavior by people have been around as long as there have been people, and as information request subjects are likely to last much longer than a routine TV fiction series. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Could say the same for the unsourced novel article. Nevertheless, anything related to the television series (non-2016), now points to the disambiguation page, causing future series visitors to travel the wiki-road, certainly bad behavior in my view. — Wyliepedia 09:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It did, up to yesterday, when I checked through and corrected the incoming links. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• The "unsourced novel article" is Good Behaviour. Move it to Good Behaviour (1981 novel)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I have moved Good Behaviour to Good Behaviour (1981 novel). Good Behaviour now redirects to Good behaviour (disambiguation). I have corrected all relevant incoming links. Good Behavior (2009, abandoned) now has 2 incoming links which I found in the course of checking incoming links. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I've fixed those 2 links. --Netoholic @ 13:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Isn't Good Behaviour (1981 novel) overdisambiguated? Couldn't we just use Good Behaviour (novel) for that one as there don't seem to be any other novels with the same name? Or are we pre-disambiguating in case the novella collection gets an article? Which if we are seems premature and also, not sure a collection of novellas automatically qualifies as a novel. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Wow, what a mess. There's no reason to disambiguate the novel further to Good Behaviour (1981 novel), as no other novels with this title have articles so Good Behaviour (novel) is sufficient (and in any case we do not disambiguate by year, but by author's surname). There's no reason for Goode Behavior (1996 TV series) to be at anything other than Goode Behavior due to its idiosyncratic spelling. The only potential problem was that people might type "Good Behavior (TV series)" when looking for Goode Behavior, which is why the 2016 TV series may need to be further disambiguated. And why do Good behavior and Good behaviour have different targets? What an absolute balls-up. --woodensuperman 15:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If Good Behavior (2016 TV series) needs to be diambig'ed by year, then so does Goode Behavior (1996 TV series). Otherwise they should just be at Good Behavior (TV series) and Goode Behavior, respectively. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as Goode Behavior is not ambiguous due to its unique spelling, but Good Behavior (TV series) might be. Although your suggestion works for me. --woodensuperman 08:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Woodensuperman, I suggest an RM on the novel if you disagree with how we arranged things on that one. Some sources for the novella compilation often confusingly call it simply a "novel" [1], and because that is what inspired the 2016 TV series, its a bit more famous than the Keane novel, so I don't think we can give that one just (novel), but I have gone ahead and follows WP:NCBOOKS and moved it to Good Behaviour (Keane novel). As for the TV series, WP:SMALLDETAILS is fine when the topics are in different areas of knowledge, but when they are both US TV series, its probably not enough. It is reasonable for someone to mistakenly type "Good Behavior" when looking for Goode Behavior, so Good Behavior (TV series) is confusing as it describes another show. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hatnotes on the two TV articles would resolve problems with typos. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Followup: I'm now leaning in the direction of doing a formal dual WP:RM for both of these: let's get a wider opinion if WP:SMALLDETAILS (with hatnotes) is considered enough in the case of these two TV show articles. (Note: I may not get to that until next week, though...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

No-one is likely to type "Goode Behavior" when looking for the 2016 show though, so it is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that spelling. A hatnote will sort it. Does the novella compilation have an article? If so, a hatnote would suffice, if not, then it's academic. --woodensuperman 08:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Now that Woodensuperman's WP:RM at Goode Behavior has wrapped up, I have opened at WP:RM at Good Behavior (2016 TV series) as the "by year" disambiguation at that article is/should be no longer necessary... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That's My Boy (TV series)

A disambiguating uncertainty has developed due to the fact that three TV series – Two British and one American – have used this title. The discussion is currently active at Talk:That's My Boy (UK TV series)#Requested move 23 March 2018.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Them (TV series)

Anyone want to suggest a proper disambiguation term for this? 'Cos, as a 1-episode "special", "TV series" sure ain't it!! TIA... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Same as Most Wanted (TV pilot)? -- Alex^TW 01:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the reason we shy from "TV special" is because it is more of a marketing term rather than a description of the content. There are a couple of options for this I think:

• (TV series) - Even if only one episode aired (or heck, none), if the article treats the subject wholly as a proposed series, such as going into the development of the series, production of the pilot, cancellation decision, etc. because even a proposed TV series is a TV series. This is especially true if there is an indication that after airing it still might have been picked up.
• (film) - If we treat the topic as presented - a self-contained show with no continuing episodes - then it would seem to be more like a short film. A lot of two-hour TV pilots get reworked and air as TV movies and for those we use (film), just because this is 60 minutes doesn't mean its any different.

I note that IMDB went with calling this a TV movie (yeah yeah I know "not a source" blah blah), so that might indicate the sort of path we might follow. I tend to agree only because there is so little information in the article giving relevance to this a proposed series topic. Most Wanted (TV pilot) on the other hand has extensive coverage as a proposed series, and should probably be renamed to (TV series) as no pilot was even ever aired in any form (though it was shot), and so (TV pilot) is inappropriate, limiting, and not endorsed in WP:NCTV. -- Netoholic @ 02:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Most Wanted should definitely not be renamed "TV series" if it never even aired. On my end, I don't like "TV pilot" used for programming that actually aired – i.e. I would only use "TV pilot" in the case of projects like Most Wanted which never reached air... I hate to say it, but "TV special" is maybe what we're stuck with for things like Them. If it's a 90-minute or 2-hour airing, then "film" can be used. But I'm leery of "film" for anything only 30- or 60-minutes long... I suppose another option is the more generic "TV program" in situations like this. No matter what, "TV series" is just wrong for anything that didn't produce (let alone air) multiple episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That seems so backward to me. "TV pilot" would imply something that aired. A lot of successful shows have TV pilots. The Most Wanted article though goes into a lot of detail about the development of the property as a series, and no actual pilot was ever aired. (TV pilot) would only be something we use if we were focusing on the single episode that aired, whereas "TV series" covers the entire production history and background. Also, on the (film) point, WP:NCFILM nor WP:NCTV have any particular length limitations. Short films are films, too. It might be informative to see how similar shows are handled: List of television series canceled after one episode, List of television series canceled before airing an episode. I am fine with a proposed series just being called (TV series) since, again, the topic is the broad concept of them as a series being developed, though additional disambiguation by year might be an issue for some since that is usually the year of first airing. -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

But, in fact, it is the other way around – as Television pilot makes clear, TV pilots are simply "prototypes" for proposed TV shows. Many more TV pilots are made than ever reach the air – in the U.S., there's on the order of 100 TV pilots produced by the networks every TV season, but probably only about two dozen of those actually result in produced TV series. (Historically, pilots that weren't picked up to TV series were aired more often in the past – back in the day, the U.S. TV networks used to air some unsuccessful TV pilots during the summer TV season...) Anyway, again, "TV series" cannot possibly be the correct disambiguation term for any TV project that did not produce multiple episodes – TV "series" literally demands multiple episodes in its very definition...
As for the specific topic at hand, I'm leaning more strongly in the direction of using "TV program" to disambiguate these kinds of non-TV movie examples that reached the air, such as Them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(TV pilot) implies the topic is the actual single episode produced or aired, whereas (TV series) is the development of the property of which that single pilot is part of. I check all items on List of television series canceled before airing an episode and found that shows cancelled even before airing (as in the case of Most Wanted) use (TV series), so you're fighting against a lot of precedent. -- Netoholic @ 03:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of "bad" precedents left over from the earlier days of Wikipedia – you can see plenty of examples in the older, low-traffic articles that you stumble across. (I'm actually somewhat impressed that so much headway has been made in "overturning" a lot of those bad precedents over the last 5–7 years...) Anyway, I don't consider the probably incorrect use of "TV series" as a disambiguator as necessarily "binding". (Though I'm not "volunteering" to go "fix" them all either!!) I think the use of "TV program" to disambiguate has been a more recent development, but it's an absolutely justifiable practice, as "TV series" (or "TV serial") is simply not the correct term in the case of a lot of TV shows and one-off TV programs (that don't qualify as "movies"...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't just our subject area. Category:Unpublished novels/Category:Upcoming books are still (novel), Category:Unpublished comics are (comics), Category:Unreleased films are still (film), and so on right through any Category:Unreleased works by medium. Category:Unaired television programs are no different, even if it seems a little strange on the surface. -- Netoholic @ 04:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Some of these are actually legit "TV series", though – for example Waterfront (TV series) actually had 5 episodes in the can, IIRC. With Day One (TV series), it's unclear – but it sounds like at least 2 episodes were produced. OTOH, I would argue that Nicki (TV series) is mislabeled – it's unclear (to me, at least) that a TV pilot was even produced there... Of course, that probably means it fails WP:TVSHOW, and should be deleted as "non-notable". Add: Hieroglyph (TV series) I would move to Hieroglyph (TV pilot), if indeed only a pilot was filmed, as seems likely from the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"seems likely from the article"? Sources describe Hieroglyph (TV series) as a series being developed. The topic is not about just a single pilot episode (note, if it was, it'd have a plot summary. Using (TV pilot) is not supported by WP:NCTV and would become a problem when people start applying it to the pilot episodes of active series. We should actually be working on eliminating any (TV pilot) usage. -- Netoholic @ 05:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's what I am saying – I would support using "TV pilot" over "TV series" for any TV project that only produced a single (pilot) episode. Failing that, then "TV program" should be used. But "TV series" is just wrong in these cases. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is core policy and the sources call them series. A television pilot is a single episode, which would almost never be notable one it's own, devoid of context from the proposed series it was due to be part of. Also, what a weird exception to have a special case only for unaired shows that filmed one and only one episode. -- Netoholic @ 13:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and this is where there is confusion – there's a difference between a "proposed" or "prospective" television series (and, FTR, most sourcing will likely describe them as that – something like a "prospective TV series"), and an actual television series – you don't actually graduate to the latter until you progress beyond the television pilot stage and produce multiple episodes. This basically gets into the whole point that people should not create articles about TV series until they are actually picked up to series, and start producing the actual TV series (i.e. the episodes). But, esp. in the past (and even somewhat now), we still have editors that are racing to create TV series articles when only a TV pilot has been ordered, and before a network has officially ordered a show. (There are also a few oddball cases, some of which are mentioned above, where a series was ordered, and then was actually "cancelled" before ever reaching the air.) Bottom line, words matter and correct terminology should be used – which means no "TV series" if it's only a TV pilot. If "TV pilot" isn't acceptable to use (and, so far, I see only you saying that, so I wouldn't describe that as the "consensus view" right now), then I'd personally be fine with using "TV program". But "TV series" should not be used in these cases. Period. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've demonstrated a consensus view by pointing out a plethora of examples of articles for shows cancelled before airing which use (TV series), and really, its just you and me right now down this particular rabbit hole so I don't think either of us should really be trying to pull the "your view doesn't have consensus" card. You'll get no fight from me if you want to start merging cancelled pilots into other articles or even nominating them for deletion due to failing WP:TVSHOW. But there are some unreleased SERIES which are notable (Most Wanted above) and we should name the same way we do for any other series using (TV series) or even (TV pilot series) if additional disambiguation is needed (since 'year' doesn't really apply). -- Netoholic @ 21:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking I will WP:AfD Nicki (TV series) one of these days, actually – that seems to be a prime case where the content should be merged to Nicki Minaj and the article deleted. Dunno about some of the others, I'll have to take a look. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Steven Soderbergh's Mosaic

Any thoughts at Talk:Mosaic (murder mystery)#Requested move 6 April 2018? --woodensuperman 14:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested mass move of TV specials - 29 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to use the disambiguator "film" for these articles, and no consensus to move either all of the articles or just those proposed in the nomination to titles using the disambiguator "TV program(me)", per the discussion below. Further, it is not clear from this discussion that there is any consensus to revise Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) in any particular fashion, although discussion on the guideline can continue as necessary. Dekimasuよ! 19:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (TV special) → How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966 film)
• Horton Hears a Who! (TV special) → Horton Hears a Who! (1970 film)
• The Cat in the Hat (TV special) → The Cat in the Hat (1971 film)
• The Lorax (TV special) → The Lorax (1972 film)
• Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special) → Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (1964 film)
• 'Twas the Night Before Christmas (1974 TV special) → 'Twas the Night Before Christmas (1974 film)
• 'Twas the Night Before Christmas (1977 TV special) → 'Twas the Night Before Christmas (1977 film)
• Mowgli's Brothers (TV special) → Mowgli's Brothers (film)
• Snoopy!!! The Musical (TV special) → Snoopy!!! The Musical (film)
• You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown (TV special) → You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown (film)
• A Christmas Story (1972 TV special) → A Christmas Story (1972 film)
• Cathy (TV special) → Cathy (film)
• Stoned (TV special) → Stoned (1980 film)
• The Haunted Mask (TV special) → The Haunted Mask (film)
• Reason (TV special) → Reason (film)
• Pianist (TV special) → Pianist (film)
• Bagboy (TV special) → Bagboy (film)
• Back to the Egg (TV special) → Back to the Egg (TV program)
• James Paul McCartney (TV special) → James Paul McCartney (TV program)
• Idea (TV special) → Idea (TV program)
• All the Way... A Decade of Song (TV special) → All the Way... A Decade of Song (TV program)
• A New Day Has Come (TV special) → A New Day Has Come (TV program)
• These Are Special Times (TV special) → These Are Special Times (TV program)
• My Name Is Barbra (TV special) → My Name Is Barbra (TV program)
• The Day After Tomorrow (TV special) → The Day After Tomorrow (film)
• The Decision (TV special) → The Decision (TV program)
• Eaten Alive (TV special) → Eaten Alive (TV program)
• Our World (TV special) → Our World (TV program)
• Hansel and Gretel (1958 TV special) → Hansel and Gretel (TV program)
• The Passion (U.S. TV special) → The Passion: New Orleans
• Break Up (TV special) → Break Up (TV program)
• 25 Years (TV special) → 25 Years (TV programme)

– These articles fall under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), which does not (and has never) supported the use of (TV special) as a disambiguation method. Largely a marketing term, a television special is a one-time, annual, or otherwise standalone event, which might be any of several types of programming: parades, pageants, celebrity profiles, tributes, award shows, animated shorts, musical adaptations, full-length films, and many more. In short, "TV special" is how it is marketed/aired, not what its format is. This vast breadth of potential content overlaps with other existing disambiguation methods and makes (TV special) almost impossible to articulate in a guideline, which is probably why it has never been used officially. Articles named using it are often edited in isolation, and Requested move discussions tend to end in WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to keep using (TV special), despite it not being part of the WP:NCTV guideline - often because voters cite other examples of its use, perpetuating the practice. This discussion (hopefully) includes all of these articles so they can be handled at once. Using existing guidelines, standalone fictional stories should be moved to (film) and any others moved to (TV program), with additional disambiguation as necessary. -- Netoholic @ 05:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose all that move to "(film)". A naming convention doesn't have to list every possible option, and not having it listed it as an option doesn't make it "invalid" (see also the use of "(TV pilot)" to disambig.). None of these listed above are actually "films" – more than a few are only 30-minutes long – and disambig'ing them as "TV special" is significantly less confusing than listing them as "films". There is no compelling reason to not leave to leave them where they are. (Now, that said, a couple of these are unnecessarily disambig'ed by year – e.g. Hansel and Gretel (1958 TV special) – those should just be disambig'ed by "TV special" only.) Neutral on the proposed moves to "(TV program)". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Amend this by one: I support moving The Passion (U.S. TV special) → The Passion: New Orleans – that one is a significant improvement over the current name. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    • A naming convention which already has available options for these topics should be followed. Essentially, your vote is giving support to a subset of content which will continue to fall through the cracks without any way to define how and when it should be used. Your comment about "30-minute length" doesn't make sense considering that films can be any length - WP:NCFILM doesn't have any minimum requirement, and such would be silly considering you can make a film of any length (5-Second Films comes to mind). Heck, Sallie Gardner at a Gallop is a series of just 24 photos and is widely considered a film. -- Netoholic @ 06:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Effectively, my point is that you're wrong in thinking use of "TV special" or "TV pilot" is some great "perversion" of NCTV that needs to be beaten down. I agree with Ribbet32 that actually writing these into NCTV is preferable to your option(s), though I actually don't think it's necessary, as I generally agree with AussieLegend that not every single example or scenario needs to be included in the guidelines. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that at all. My goal is to remove a source of numerous page move yo-yoing and repeated RMs discussing the same issues over and over again. Its the same justification as why we removed (telenovela) and (anime) recently. -- Netoholic @ 07:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

A film doesn't have to be longer than 30 minutes. There are lots of short films that are only five or ten minutes long. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Not on television, they're not! At less than 90 minutes, it'd be a "program", or an "episode", or a "television short" (if shorter than 30, or 15, minutes) – but at this length, they aren't called "films" on TV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose all per IJB. NC/TV isn't a policy, nor is it concrete; it is not an exhaustive list. Sometimes common sense is the best disambiguator, by listing it as what people would most commonly refer to it as. Were these released as specials, and would the reader refer to them as a special rather than a movie, film, series or program? Probably, yes. Given that we have the article on television special, it makes even more sense to continue using the term. -- Alex^TW 06:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose all per WP:COMMONNAME. This is one of those things where it's the guideline that may most need to be amended. How the Grinch Stole Christmas is regarded/identified/remembered as a TV special [2] [3] and the same goes with Mowgli's Brothers [4] and Rudolph [5] Ribbet32 (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per IJBall, who I think is right on all counts. These are more commonly known as TV specials than as films. Station1 (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As with the RM discussion here Talk:Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special) these are not films. Also why the TV project defaults to NCFILM when that page makes no mention of TV items makes no sense to me. MarnetteD|Talk 23:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per IJB - Not all of these are films and personally I'd say these should be discussed individually. –Davey2010^Talk 17:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• To editor Davey2010: - You're right, they aren't all films, which is why about half are being proposed to move to (TV program). Individual RMs have been tried, but usually people cite other existing articles using (TV special), which is why they RM is handling them all at once. -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ah right sorry, I just feel individual would be better (although admittingly more time consuming) but if you've tried that and got no where then I can understand doing it as one, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• And it's a good way to go, to test whether the existing pattern of article names reflects community consensus better than your disputed interpretation of a specific guideline does. Andrewa (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support use of "TV program/programme". Oppose use of "film". --woodensuperman 13:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support use of "TV program/programme". Oppose use of "film". Why can't the "film" ones just be moved to "program(me)"? --Khajidha (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I suppose they could. Its better than having an undefinable exception like "TV special". Several animated shorts already exist using (film), and there are sources which use movie/film to describe the ones listed in this move request, but if it means we can eliminate all use of (TV special), then I can at least support moving them to (TV program/me). -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"TV program" is about 100% preferable as the disambig. term to using "film" to disambig., especially for anything that 1) premiered on television, and 2) is 30 minutes (or even 60 minutes) long or less. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall, AlexTheWhovian, Andrewa, Davey2010, MarnetteD, Ribbet32, Khajidha, and Station1: - would any of you be willing to change your votes to Move all to (TV program/me) in order that we can deprecate use of (TV special)? -- Netoholic @ 20:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Missed @Woodensuperman:. -- Netoholic @ 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Ummmmm. Isn't that basically what I said? --Khajidha (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really. The fact is program is too broad of a term. Special shows up far more often in search engines. MarnetteD|Talk 20:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Many shows are described using very specific terms like "telenovela" or "sitcom", but we use the broadly encompassing (TV series)". Likewise, we don't use common terms like "news program" or "morning show" but the broader (TV program). -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"We" who is this "We"? The term special has been just fine for these articles for years so some of "we" prefer accuracy over vagueness. MarnetteD|Talk 20:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Khajidha: - Its unclear, since your vote could be read as supporting only the items moving to TV program, and opposing those moving to film (ie keeping them where they are). -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I thought my "Why can't the "film" ones just be moved to "program(me)"?" covered that. Anyway, put me down as in favor of moving all of them (except the "Passion" one) to "TV program(me)".--Khajidha (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

At worst, I'm "neutral" on that proposal, as I said above. I would actively support moving any of these diambig'ed by "(film)" to "(TV program)" though... It might actually be best to withdraw this entire proposal, and start over though, in light of the resulting discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but I see no reason to deprecate use of (TV special). In fact that seems the whole issue here. Andrewa (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No, as above. I see no reason to deprecate it, and I will not be pressured into changing my !vote for the RM-opener's agenda. I recommend you allow the thread to continue instead of requesting people to change their !vote because you disagree with it. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 01:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This isn't strictly a vote. If someone proposes an alternative and its a reasonable compromise, its worth consideration and worth bringing it to the attention of earlier participants. --Netoholic @ 01:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. My position still stands. -- Alex^TW 02:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, still opposed. If something is called a TV special in most reliable sources, and many editors over many years think it's the best title, I see no compelling reason to change them. (Although I agree "TV program" is far less objectionable than "film".) Station1 (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support use of "TV program/programme"; Oppose use of "film" I think "film" without a preceding "TV" gets pretty confusing in the context of stuff that aired on TV/was made for TV broadcast, so I'd be good with having the "(TV special)" instances switched to "(TV program/me)". —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• If you find any errors with the proposed destination of any of the moves (such as wrong additional disambiguation) or if any are too complicated and needs a separate RM after this one, please reply here and I'll fix it or strike it. Please don't let individual items impact the overall vote. -- Netoholic @ 05:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

My general comment is that I would have been much more sympathetic to this proposal if you have proposed mass moving them all to "(TV program)" – had you done that, I might have even supported it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

But that's not the case. Films are films, regardless of length or marketing term used. We don't use (TV program) for any fictional non-series topics - we have (film) for that. -- Netoholic @ 06:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

And it's exactly that kind of thinking that's going to doom this proposal – in no case is "(film)" a better disambiguator than "(TV special)" for these – the other two respondents above are correct: use of "TV special" over "film" here is just common sense. At least with "(TV program)", you might have a case to make for using that over "(TV special)". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I came to this proposal after spending several hours actually trying to figure out a way to define (TV special) so that we could support it in this guideline. I added my findings as article edits to television special, but in short, there is simply too many potential possible types of content and no distinguishing qualities which make them distinct from either (film) or (TV program). We call them TV specials only because that how we usually are marketed them, but put the exact same content on a DVD or stream it from Netflix, and it becomes a stretch to call any of them a "TV special" anymore. Try it yourself - try to write out some way to add support for this into the guideline, and I think you'll also see the problem. If we can't clearly add it to the guideline, then it shouldn't be used, even if it "seems wrong". Ask the (telenovela) or (anime) guys about how they feel losing those disambiguations. It feels "wrong" to them too and was against COMMONNAME in almost all cases, and I sympathize, but removing that (and this) is for the better in the long run. -- Netoholic @ 07:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The difference is that anime and soap opera/telenovela are genres. "TV special" and "TV pilot" are much more akin to formats, which we still allow as disambiguators (e.g. the pestiferous "miniseries", that some of us would like to see deprecated, but that's a separate issue...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not necessary for us to define anything. All we need to do is figure out what most reliable sources call something and use that. Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (TV special) is called that by most reliable sources and is most recognizable to most readers. If it's also technically a film, that's a fact that belongs in the article, but need not be the disambiguator. Station1 (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. But it might be helpful to clarify things, just to help avoid more misguided over-application of the rules to no benefit to the reader. Andrewa (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

How clear etc is the guideline

From above:

• If we can't clearly add it to the guideline, then it shouldn't be used [6]
• NC/TV isn't a policy, nor is it concrete; it is not an exhaustive list. Sometimes common sense is the best disambiguator, by listing it as what people would most commonly refer to it as. [7] (my emphasis)

These I think most clearly show the two opposing views on this. And we can't have it both ways.

Are there other relevant policies and guidelines that might help decide this issue? Or other comments? Andrewa (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the best way to approach things like this is right out of WP:GUIDES: "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." IOW, guidelines are not a set of "top-down rules" that should be followed 100% of the time. There will always be exceptional situations where following "best practices" may not be the best course of action. This business with "TV special" neatly falls into one of these exceptional cases, I think. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Which would make Netoholic's argument which I cited above completely baseless, would it not? (And possibly all of their other arguments too.)

Which makes their comment Its the same justification as why we removed (telenovela) and (anime) recently [8] something of a worry too. Can anyone offer links to these recent discussions? Andrewa (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

There were RfC's held on those – I think they were held in one of the Village Pumps. FTR, I supported those, because we shouldn't be disambig'ing by TV "genre". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

AHA and now I see #Notice of RFC closures with regards to (anime) and (telenovela) above. Missed that before.

There's also an RfC above at #RfC: Telenovela disambiguation but it was a no consensus close. Andrewa (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Corollary proposal

The guideline, under the heading Non-series television, should be amended by adding "or (TV special)" right after "or (TV programme)" at the third bullet. Although not strictly necessary, it could be helpful clarification. Station1 (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. If this RM is rejected, then IMO that should be boldly and immediately done, to reflect consensus that TV special is an acceptable disambiguator.

But there's still the issue of whether that's even supposed to be an exhaustive list. At the risk of instruction creep I think that should be clarified too.

And there's even a remote and horrible possibility that (telenovela) and (anime) should be added to the relevant guidelines too. Still waiting for links to those recent discussions. Andrewa (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Links above, missed them before. Andrewa (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support as I said my argument above. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support on adding "(TV special)" as a disambiguator. -- Alex^TW 08:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. "TV program/programme" is sufficient. --woodensuperman 13:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Poor reasoning. It's not a program, it's a singular events, not a series of events. -- Alex^TW 13:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

He didn't say "series". A television program can be a one off. --Khajidha (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Source for this definition? -- Alex^TW 14:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Try any dictionary. wikt:television program. --woodensuperman 14:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Wiki servers are not reliable sources, sorry, due to self-sourcing. -- Alex^TW 14:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Try any other dictionary then, it's not difficult. --woodensuperman 14:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A television program(me) is not necessarily episodic and can relate to a single broadcast item. --woodensuperman 14:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If something is called a "special", as opposed to a "program", in a significant majority of reliable sources, why should we not call it that? Station1 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A TV special is still a TV program(me), so we already have sufficient disambiguation without needing to clarify further. --woodensuperman 15:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Essentially, "TV program" is a "catch-all", of which "TV special" would be a subset. On my end, I haven't voted on this proposal because I don't think it should be added to the guideline (it's too rare an occurrence, with maybe only about 2 dozen legitimate extant examples), but neither do I think the use of "TV special" as a disambig. term should be "disallowed" (it's just better if its use is kept "rare"). IMO, pointing to this discussion should be good enough for future reference – we don't need to add it to the guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, this isn't really about what we are calling something. In the text of the article we could still say that something was a "special", just as we now say that things are sitcoms, talk shows, soap operas, etc. This is about a disambiguation tag. This is only to keep the article distinct from other things with the same name. See the post by Joeyconnick from 7:51 pm, 5 April 2018, Thursday (26 days ago) (UTC−4). For example we have to disambiguate "The Cat in the Hat" from the character, the book, and the movie. For that purpose it doesn't matter if the television program is a one off or a long series. It's a television program and that is enough to distinguish it. --Khajidha (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a special is a program. As I stated in the proposal, it's not strictly necessary. But I see no point to moving How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (TV special) to How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (TV program) when most people call it a special, and adding three words to the guideline could avoid that. This discussion will eventually be archived and not nearly as easy to find as the guideline. Station1 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The point is to have a consistent structure, without too many unnecessary options, so that readers know where to find an article, and we don't accidentally end up with duplicate articles created under different names. --woodensuperman 15:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

But as shown by all the redlinks in the list above, the natural inclination of editors is to title these "TV specials". No one has created duplicate articles titled "TV program". The opposite seems more likely to me. Use of "TV special" seems to be the consistent structure for specials and the natural consensus of editors despite "TV special" not appearing in the guideline. Station1 (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't have to look very far to find that we also have On the Run Tour: Beyoncé and Jay-Z (TV program), which could be considered a "special". There are at least a dozen more. WP:CONSISTENCY is key here, we don't need the fine grain on disambiguators, we can keep it simple by using "program/programme". --woodensuperman 15:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And "natural inclination" is very shaky ground. In my dialect, "movie" is much more natural than "film". But we have settled on film. --Khajidha (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As I'm fond of saying in these discussions – that can all be taken care of with redirects. Whether we disambig. with "TV special" and leave a redirect at "TV program", or disambig. with "TV program" and leave a redirect at "TV special", the net effect is the basically same. In short – we can name redirects by any means we want (as long as it's reasonable). But the actual disambig'ing naming structure should generally be as simple as possible. This was the point I made when I got disambig'ing by TV network deprecated (though there are still a few hold outs out there where the base article is still disambig'ing by TV network...). --IJBall (contribs • talk)

I agree that redirects could always be created if anyone thinks they're really needed to avoid confusion or duplication. And consistency could be accomplished by moving specials titled "TV program" to "TV special" as easily as the other way around, but I don't think either is necessary. Consistency is only one criterion at WP:AT. Naturalness and recognizability are others that are equally important. While a consensus has developed to use "film" rather than the synonymous "movie", the list above shows no such consensus regarding the use of "TV special". Guidelines should reflect consensus, not impose rules. Station1 (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Woodensuperman's reasoning. --Khajidha (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - (TV program) is positioned in this guideline to be the final "catch-all" for any shows which don't fit into the more specific stated disambiguations (ie (TV series), (talk show), etc. ). A television special could be almost any style of content, and so is impossible to define for use in a guideline like this one. -- Netoholic @ 21:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as someone has already pointed out that I've said previously, WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to disambiguation tags; we should be aiming for consistency/clarity with those, with redirects from "(TV special)" if needed i.e. we don't automatically create a "(TV special)" redirect for every single instance of "(TV program)"... we just use them for already established articles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

---

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

The Passion (Netherlands)

What should be the correct title (disambiguation) for this article, for a TV program that seems to air but once a year? – The Passion (Netherlands TV series)? The Passion (Netherlands TV program)? Thoughts?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Its a live event which is simulcast on television, in much the same way live concerts or sports events are. Live sports events are named according to their own standards, but television "wrappers" like Monday Night Football fall under NCTV. So the first thing to determine is whether the primary focus is on the live events, or the television "wrapper". The article (and official site) mentions that its also broadcast on radio. This kind of makes me lean toward this being an event article. -- Netoholic @ 21:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NCEVENTS isn't much help on this, though I gather even from that that the current article is misnamed if we put it under NCEVENTS over NCTV... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

NCEVENTS naming is concerned about WHEN/WHAT/WHERE, so in that sense the current title satisfies WHAT and WHERE, leaving the WHEN to the article text. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so – under NCEVENTS, the title would actually be something like The Passion in the Netherlands. (Not sure if a "2011" would have to be put in there somewhere...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series)#Requested move 15 May 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series)#Requested move 15 May 2018. Somebody from here should probably take a look at this, and make sure they're not making a hash of this under NCTV (as I suspect they might be!...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Happy Tree Friends TV episodes (season 1) misnamed?

This is misnamed under NCTV, yes? And should be at simply Happy Tree Friends (season 1), correct? (Or, maybe not, as there's only one "TV season"?...)

What about List of Happy Tree Friends Internet shorts (season 1), List of Happy Tree Friends Internet shorts (season 2), List of Happy Tree Friends Internet shorts (season 3), and List of Happy Tree Friends Internet shorts (season 4)?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the article in question, it is indeed incorrectly named as it's not only a list of episodes, but a season article. It should be changed to Happy Tree Friends (season 1). Regarding the Internet shorts, it seems those articles are just list of episodes and have no other season information. So either season information is added and the name should be changed to Happy Tree Friends (Internet shorts season 1) or merged into a List of Happy Tree Friends episodes, which would include also the TV episodes (see List of South Park episodes or List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes as an example). If the Internet shorts do stay with an article then the TV name would need changing as well to Happy Tree Friends (TV series season 1) Gonnym (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks – I'll likely rename the TV season article, and think about merging/redirecting the rest to the main LoE article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, my question is, are these articles really necessary? I mean, all the information that each one contains is already in the episode list article. And looking beyond that, seasonal articles do not have any kind of valuable information, it's just something repeated.--Philip J FryTalk 17:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaving the "should Happy Tree Friends (season 1) exist as an article?" question out of this discussion. I just want it moved to the correct location under NCTV. People can followup on that issue, as they wish. (It does sound like the "internet shorts" season articles should be merged – I'll look into doing that when I have more time...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy Tree Friends (season 1) would seem to be the wrong title. From what I read, those episodes seem to make up the entirety of what we could call the "made-for-TV series" distinct from the "web series" which also a "season 1". This article series needs a "holistic" approach from someone who wants to dig deep into it and figure out how the content should be best presented. -- Netoholic @ 18:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

A little bit unrelated. Where did the season episode list come from (which episodes belong to which season)? Gonnym (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on contents List of Happy Tree Friends TV episodes (season 1) is a valid season article with an episode section and should be named as such. Any season lists that are purely just a list of episodes should be merged in to just an episode list. How we disambiguate articles related to a web series from broadcast series of the same name is a separate issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved List of Happy Tree Friends TV episodes (season 1) to Happy Tree Friends (season 1). The other four "internet season" articles do not justify stand-alone articles – I'll go ahead and merge the content from those back to List of Happy Tree Friends episodes, and convert them to redirects, in the near future. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Agent Carter characters#Requested move 25 May 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Agent Carter characters#Requested move 25 May 2018. Netoholic @ 10:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC) An interesting discussion about the transition point between list and article, and also about appropriate naming if moved to an article title. -- Netoholic @ 10:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Head Over Heels (TV series) vs. Head over Heels (TV series)

I'm guessing these need further disambiguation from each other, to Head over Heels (UK TV series) and Head over Heels (U.S. TV series), respectively, as WP:SMALLDETAILS definitely doesn't seem to be enough here, and MOS:TITLECAPS would seem to prefer lowercase "over" for both, yes? (Or, is "Head Over Heels" one of the MOS:TITLECAPS exceptions, as Particles of phrasal verbs?...)

Opinions? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This seems to be doubly true, as there is a Czech series that is about to debut on HBO that also has the title Head over Heels (which may necessitate Head over Heels (Czech TV series), as well...): [9]. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Star Trek Into Darkness flashbacks. Per MOS:TITLECAPS they should be lowercased as "prepositions containing four letters or fewer". I personally think MOS:TITLECAPS is weird and needs reexamination. No matter which is used, though, its still confusing as WP:SMALLDETAILS doesn't make it clear enough and they should be further disambiguated. -- Netoholic @ 20:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done – articles moved to provide further disambiguation from each other, and the original pages have been converted to redirects back to the Head over Heels disambiguation page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Happy Tree Friends (season 1)#Requested move 8 June 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Happy Tree Friends (season 1)#Requested move 8 June 2018. This is a follow-up to the discussion, up-page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:HaAh HaGadol 1#Requested move 20 June 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:HaAh HaGadol 1#Requested move 20 June 2018 . This request was opened up by another editor to fix a potential error in the spelling of the articles relating to the Israeli version of Big Brother. More input needed on this request to move before another move request can be opened to rename these articles in accordance with the guidelines of WP:NCTV ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Big Brother Africa 1#Requested move 21 June 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother Africa 1#Requested move 21 June 2018. I also listed similar move discussions at Talk:Big Brother Angola (season 1)#Requested move 21 June 2018, Talk:Gran Hermano Argentina#Requested move 21 June 2018 and Talk:Big Brother 1 (Australia)#Requested move 21 June 2018 to see how breaking each edition out into its own move request would work. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I submitted the last of the non-controversial move requests today in relation to Big Brother articles that do not follow the guidelines of WP:NCTV and has no source for their current names.

• Talk:Veliki brat 2006#Requested move 21 June 2018
• Talk:Big Brother 1 (Croatia)#Requested move 21 June 2018
• Talk:Big Brother 4 (Denmark)#Requested move 21 June 2018
• Talk:Secret Story 1 (France)#Requested move 21 June 2018
• Talk:Bigg Boss#Requested move 21 June 2018
• Talk:Big Brother 1 (Netherlands)#Requested move 21 June 2018
• Talk:Big Brother 2011 (Sweden)#Requested move 21 June 2018
• Talk:Big Brother Mzansi 3 (South Africa)#Requested move 21 June 2018
• Talk:Secret Story (Peruvian TV series)#Requested move 21 June 2018

The ones above should be pretty straightforward and were not debated during the last move request. After all of these are settled then we can figure out the next step for the debated editions. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-English television names

I wanted to see what the naming convention was for TV shows from a foreign language (aka, non English). WP:NCFILM has a section to deal with that but for television it's not mentioned at all. Do we use the original name? What if the English sources do not use that name and instead use an English name? An example can be for a franchise like Big Brother, where RS might not use the non-English local name and instead call it "Big Brother". Anyway this goes, we should at least add a line to NCTV so this is cleared up. --Gonnym (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

As per WP:ENGLISH, we go with what English-language sources predominantly call it, and the article title should reflect that name, not the "native language" one... The problem arises when there's no "English-language" name at all – then we're stuck with the foreign title. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation with a language prefix

Over at Talk:Bigg Boss#Requested move 21 June 2018 the request is to move pages with a language disambiguation - Hindi, Marathi, Kannada etc. While I (and most commentators) support that move, I just noticed that this isn't exactly per the naming conventions, which say to prefix the year of release. So I would like to know if this is a valid name per the NC? Gonnym (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Many of the release years will be the same, so it'll produce another article title conflict, so they'd need two disambiguators anyway. WP:CONSISTENCY policy would have us name them consistently. It's a frequent thing that one kind of consistency collides with another; when this happens, go with the more important consistency.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we deprecate the disambiguator "(miniseries)"?

This has come up in a couple of discussions when we were talking about "(telenovela)", and it's still problematic to my mind. This move is the catalyst here, which is essentially a UK series. Although we allow for the disambiguator "(miniseries)", we do specify that we should take into account usage in the originating country, so we shouldn't use it for UK series. I don't really see common usage of "serial" either. It is also problematic as there is some debate as to what is and what isn't a miniseries. There are such things as "event series" and "limited series". I would prefer if we use "(TV series)" for all, because whether it is a miniseries, serial, or whatever, it is still a TV series, the same way that telenovelas are also TV series. --woodensuperman 10:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's not actually very good as a disambiguator. To use our own example of Taken, someone looking for the miniseries may well search for Taken (TV series). --woodensuperman 10:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, we know that you may prefer it, but the current usage of it indicates that there is a preference for it. If the series is directly advertised as a miniseries (or its alternative terms with the same meaning, such as event series, limited series, etc.), then it should be disambiguated as such, else it should be determined through a clear WP:CONSENSUS. If a miniseries that was advertised as a miniseries is then renewed for a second season, then yes, they should be disambiguated by TV series. -- Alex^TW 10:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No, because the well-known descriptor "miniseries" defines such a particular set of "TV series" that the two are separate but related forms. Perhaps the best known miniseries in the states is Roots (1977 miniseries), a historical event as well as a defining television event. Roots (1977 TV series) would not be the most common or recognizable form of the production, and is probably so uncommon that I just now had to create a redirect of its red link. "Miniseries" gives a known and publicly accepted context to the wider term, 'series'. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

They can't be separate forms if one is a subset of the other. And Roots (1977 miniseries) is easily interchangeable with Roots (1977 TV series). If people were talking about "the 1977 TV series Roots", it would be instantly recognizable. --woodensuperman 11:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be recognizable as Roots (1977 TV series), but it's even more recognizable as Roots (1977 miniseries). -- Alex^TW 12:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe we must maintain it for both recognizability reasons, but also WP:VERIFIABILITY, which is a core policy. Sources for the shows given that disambiguator tend to overwhelmingly use the term "miniseries" (or the BE equivalent of "serial") - not any other kind of alternative like (TV series). I feel this is a low impact problem also, as that style of program is largely outdated and so the pool of shows affected is unlikely to grow very much. -- Netoholic @ 12:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that is happening. I think more shows than should be are being given the disambiguator "miniseries" and this is the problem. By eliminating this option and disambiguating everything that needs it with "TV series" (which is what every miniseries is), we keep it simple, and we avoid any debate as to which category of TV series these shows should be disambiguated with. The verifiability and recognizability issues are actually the reverse of what you mention - there's no debate that a miniseries is a TV series, but there's some debate as to which TV series are miniseries. --woodensuperman 13:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide proof or sources that back up your first (and last) statements? -- Alex^TW 13:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at Category:British television miniseries. In it you'll find plenty of articles which are questionably disambiguated. To pick three illustrations: Smiley's People (miniseries) (not a miniseries, possibly a serial), Watership Down (miniseries) (possibly a serial, if anything, issues with disambiguation with Watership Down (TV series)), Les Misérables (2018 miniseries) (again, possibly a serial, but TV series would be better). By using "TV series" for all of these, we can be consistent and avoid any move wars or unnecessary debate. --woodensuperman 13:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And another for good measure: Collateral (miniseries). --woodensuperman 13:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

These are cases for WP:RM, not a cause for a guideline change. If there are articles that need to change, lets change them and see where we stand with what is left. -- Netoholic @ 15:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to offer an opinion on the question, as I'm ambivalent, but Woodensuperman is correct that a guideline change is arguably in order now. The historical definition of "miniseries" has been effectively murdered(!!) over the last decade or so by self-serving network executives and clueless entertainment reporters to the point where the term is no longer meaningful anymore. There are certainly a number of articles that are using "miniseries" as a disambiguation term which don't meet the historical definition (i.e. they are instead "limited series", or worse "revival" seasons of older TV shows, and are not true "miniseries"), but which are disambig'ed that way because (clueless or self-serving) sourcing used the term. As a result, it is definitely arguable now that the term is no longer meaningful, and should be retired from use as a disambiguation for WP:TV articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem if we start RMing them individually is that we'll end up with some moved, some not moved, some moved the wrong way, and we'll be in just as much of a mess as we are in now. Policy calls for WP:CONSISTENCY. Calling them all "TV series" is the only way we can satisfy this. --woodensuperman 15:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Only if you gain a WP:CONSENSUS to rename them all in some sort of mass-change. If you don't, then RM results supercede consistency. -- Alex^TW 23:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If there are shows which don't even conform to the current guideline, then changing the guideline won't make a difference. Do the RMs first. -- Netoholic @ 02:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

All the while we allow "miniseries" in the guideline, there will be confusion as to what constitutes a miniseries or not, and people will cite the guideline in any RM discussion, therefore any RM will be skewed. Maybe a tighter definition of "miniseries" is needed in the guideline first in order to avoid this. --woodensuperman 08:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

But there isn't one – that's the problem. Twenty years ago there was. But not now. That's precisely why disambiguating by "miniseries" at all is probably no longer a good idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't need a "tighter definition of miniseries" - we leave that up to the sources used in the various articles to determine when they use that term to describe a particular event. -- Netoholic @ 01:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

And some people consider a miniseries (especially the early ones) to be more like long films broken up for broadcast. This is why the term is separate from both "series" and "film". -- Netoholic @ 15:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the historical definition. Unfortunately, it's virtually anachronistic now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Historical terms should be retained for historical subjects. We simply cannot redefine old topics using new terms, contradicting sources of the time, and still be satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY - a core policy which supercedes any naming guideline. -- Netoholic @ 16:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear! (to use an anachronistic shout) Randy Kryn (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Many people are discussing "miniseries" as if that somehow falls under WP:COMMONNAME, where we "call" something by what it is commonly known as. But this is a disambiguator which, if the common name were unique, we wouldn't be using. So whether people would better recognize the 1977 work Roots as a "miniseries" or a "TV series" is irrelevant: the actual question is does the parenthetical disambiguating term provide sufficient context to enable readers to distinguish between the televised work and any other articles entitled "Roots" and get to where they want to go. I would argue that Roots (1977 TV series) does provide sufficient context. Similarly, if all articles using "(miniseries)" as a disambiguator were renamed to use "(TV series)", would that increase confusion? Not likely, except in the case where there was a both an article labelled "(miniseries)" and one labelled "(TV series)", which might be the only case in which "(miniseries)" should be kept, although in that (surely limited) set of cases, you could fall back to "([year] TV series)". I fail to see how WP:VERIFIABILITY has anything to do with this issue... it's not like the sources would change if the article were renamed. WP:COMMONSENSE would cover people understanding that what we now disambiguate as "TV series" may have, at some point, been called a "miniseries". —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You never asked whether miniseries provides sufficient context, only if TV series does. I answer that yes, it does, as the definition of miniseries is "a television program that tells a story in a predetermined, limited number of episodes". In fact, I'd say that it provides even more context in that, yes, it is a television series, but it also provides details as to what sort of television series it is. Hence, here is no need to fix what isn't broken. -- Alex^TW 00:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Except, arguably it doesn't – you just gave the more "modern" definition (which is a "limited" series, i.e. a 1-hour series airing weekly for fixed term); what Netoholic was giving above was the "historical" definition – basically a series of "TV movies" airing nightly. This is the problem – because of what happened, the term is basically not useful anymore. So I lean in the direction of agreeing with Woodensuperman and Joeyconnick on this – as a disambig. term, I'm not sure it's more useful than "(1977 TV series)" at this point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There are still such cases, Ascension (miniseries) and Childhood's End (miniseries), to name two. -- Alex^TW 00:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Woodensuperman So you agree that there are recent series that still constitute a miniseries in the traditional sense? -- Alex^TW 10:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, these could be considered to be the specific format of TV series that are traditionally considered to be a "miniseries". That doesn't mean that we need to disambiguate them as such. They are still TV series, and the disambiguator "TV series" is perfectly sufficient in these cases. However, as far as categorization, etc., goes, miniseries would be appropriate. --woodensuperman 10:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Miniseries is also not limited to television, there is also miniseries (comics). Also a "series of "TV movies" airing nightly" is still "a television program that tells a story in a predetermined, limited number of episodes". The fact that those "TV movies" are broadcast in a shorter time frame is no more important than the fact that Batman (TV series) broadcast two episodes a week for much of its run. --Khajidha (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should start with the assumption that an article will be disambiguated as "tv series" and only change from that when there is a conflict. The additional disambiguators of date and country or origin should be our next choice, as these are unambiguous facts. I could only see using "miniseries" after those options had been exhausted. --Khajidha (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm, we seem to be fairly evenly split on this issue, with those in favour of continuing to use "miniseries" numbering slightly fewer than those who want to get rid of it. Enough of an issue to warrant a proper RfC do you think? If only bona fide miniseries (2 hour episodes, aired consecutive nights, etc) were being disambiguated as such, I'd be inclined to drop the issue, but when any TV series which has a fixed number of episodes is disambiguated as such (Collateral (miniseries) for example), we have to acknowledge we have an issue that needs resolving. --woodensuperman 09:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect an RfC to come out any differently – it's likely to end with "no consensus". But I agree with you that it's a problem, esp. because modern entertainment media appears unable to use the terms "miniseries" and "limited series" correctly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll put a note up at the television wikiproject, see if a few more eyes make a difference. I'm surprised I hadn't already tbh. --woodensuperman 13:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Its not that they don't use them "correctly", its that the usage is in flux, which is exactly why we shouldn't change anything in the guideline until things settle out. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly why we should just not use it at all? --woodensuperman 07:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

If we were to stop using terminology just because its usage is in flux then we wouldn't be writing anything. The reality is that English is always changing, and not always for the better. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

When we have a situation when a disambiguation term is more often than not used incorrectly, and we have a simple solution to rectify that by using another term which has been demonstrated to satisfy policy without any loss of clarity, and could avoid edit wars, shouldn't we be using it? Especially when it is ambiguous as to what does or doesn't qualify as a "miniseries"? I'm seeing fixed part documentary series with this disambiguation, which is clearly not right. --woodensuperman 10:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Then fix those where it's used incorrectly via an RM, and allow those to remain as-is where the term is used correctly. I'm not seeing any cited policies or edit-wars occurring over these? -- Alex^TW 10:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we tighten the guideline a bit, to illustrate that by "miniseries", we mean a series which is usually 2-hour episodes, usually broadcast over consecutive nights, etc, or similar, which I think reflects the way this discussion has gone. --woodensuperman 11:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

If there is a consensus for such a change. -- Alex^TW 12:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It's only in flux with regards to modern shows - for older shows, the meaning was more limited and consistent, which is why we need to retain it. It's these newer shows that you need to bring to RM so that we can look into them. --Netoholic @ 15:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, this may be no help in this discussion whatsoever, but I've been collecting a list of so-called "limited series" (sourced) in my sandbox for quite a while... (I probably should start doing the same for traditional "miniseries" as well.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The so-called "classic" use of mini-series didn't mean that it was "2-hour episodes broadcast on successive nights", that's simply the episode length and schedule that happened to be used for many of them. We don't disambiguate other television programs by length and schedule, so it makes no sense to do it here. Heck, the canonical example of Roots didn't have 2-hour episodes, but none of the supporters of using miniseries for it seem bothered by that. Rich Man, Poor Man wasn't all 2-hour episodes and wasn't broadcast on successive nights, but I don't think anyone would say it wasn't a miniseries. This distinction between old and new meanings that some are trying to draw has never existed.--Khajidha (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Importantly, at both this thread and the related one on the same page, it also really just doesn't matter what "miniseries" meant, on average, in 1981, or whether "serial" was more apt to be used in 1975 in the UK. This is not WriteLikeItsADifferentCenturyPedia. We use contemporary English now with the meanings that people expect now, not what Granny expected when Doctor Who aired for the first time or when Roots was a new release. This lawyering about the exact meanings of these terms needs to stop. We only use them to be WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE enough, as disambiguators, for people to understand their not at a page about a one-off documentary, or whatever. It only has to be good enough to disambiguate. Our titles are not descriptions or definitions of the subject; that's what the lead section is for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Sex&Drugs&Rock&Roll moved

There was an undiscussed move of Sex&Drugs&Rock&Roll recently – it would be good if others from NCTV took a look at this, and determine whether such a page move should have been made. The advantage of the original name is WP:NATURALDIS, so I'm personally not a fan of this move... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If this were RMed, I would bet money on the move being supported, because MOS:TM, etc., militate against mimicry of weird trademark stylization. More to the point, the RS and the popular sources that are strongly indicative of usage even if not RS by our standards (IMDb, major retailers) do not ape the hard-to-read trademark over-stylization – not even in the entertainment press, which is collectively notorious for doing so to keep their industry advertisers happy. And major papers and newswires largely aren't doing it either. Exampled from a few seconds on Google: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. While, yes, you can find publications using Sex&Drugs&Rock&Roll styling in their own words, it's a thin minority usage, clearly owing to its awkward lack of readability. Which, in my view, makes a citation to WP:NATURAL or WP:NATURALDIS especially ironic, because that version of the title is radically unnatural for English. And NATURAL trumps NATURALDIS, anyway. It's one of the actual WP:CRITERIA. I.e., the name has to fit that criterion, before we ever even consider disambiguating it by any means.

If you actually look at the logos, the ones for both seasons in multiple layouts ([18][19][20][21]) are well kerned and/or font-sized, and do not actually look like "Sex&Drugs&Rock&Roll" at all, but are quite legible. On the other hand, the movie about Ian Dury has a logo stylization (on one poster, at least [22]) of "sex&drugs&rock&roll" which is even worse, and pretty much intolerable by our standards. The studio knew it was unreadable too, and broke it up vertically into three blocks as "sex& / drugs& / rock&roll". News and other publishers are ignoring this bollocks, and give it either as Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll or, occasionally, Sex&Drugs&Rock&Roll. Because neither the film nor the TV series are rendered in that squished form in an overwhelming majority of sources, both MOS:TM and WP:TITLETM indicate to use plain (i.e., natural) English rendering.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.)#Requested move 28 May 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.)#Requested move 28 May 2018. This concerns a mass-move request for articles under WP:BIGBROTHER, and WP:NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Regional variations

I'd like to propose changing the phrases that read "in the originating country" to "in reliable sources about the topic" for the (miniseries)/(serial) and (program)/(programme). In general, this is to avoid potential WP:V problems and because I think there is a shift in usage in the time since these parts of the guideline were written in over 10 years ago. This is inspired by this RM discussion. In that case, NCTV as written would dictate (serial) be used as its a British program, but the sources all described it as a miniseries/mini-series. The reply I got from User:SMcCandlish was that (serial) is "ambiguous and more often refers to something else" and that seems right just based on the trends I've seen in other recent RMs. We also recently had a discussion about the shift in Australian usage moving from programme to program. Does my proposed change go far enough or should we be looking at this more deeply and perhaps make a bigger change? (and yes, I know some people hate "miniseries" altogether, but lets keep that separate). -- Netoholic @ 09:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The basic proposal seems reasonable, since WP is RS-based, not geographically split. That said, I think we should avoid nitpicking with examples, and I'd want to see hardcore proof that "program" has become a norm in Australian English over "programme", specifically in reference to television, before we said anything about that. If it's just "acceptable" we still don't need to say anything about it. I looked into this very matter less than two years ago, and found that "program" was gaining ground in all Commonwealth dialects, but only in a computing context, and that it remained solidly "programme" for television, policy/governance, and other uses, while (of course) "program" was used for virtually everything in the US and even usually in Canada, though there are always pro-British spelling outliers up there. (About the only exception in the US is that theatrical programmes, the credits papers you get when you go to watch a stage production, will often be spelled thus, just like there's a fair chance the venue, if devoted to stage shows, will use "Theatre" in its name even in Yankeeland; that usage has actually increased rather than decreased in the US for such venues over the last couple of generations, as a method of distinguishing from movie theaters which almost always use the -er spelling in that country, though not in Canada, where -re dominates for both venue types.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

To editor SMcCandlish: - Tend to agree that we don't really want to change the broad allowance of program/programme at this point as the gap in British English is still substantial. Very few discussions in recent years about that, other than Australia which is in what looks like a transition. Can you elaborate though on how you see the distinction between television serial vs miniseries/mini-series in recent years in the UK? -- Netoholic @ 06:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That I didn't look into, just the program[me] stuff while also researching some other Commonwealth English vs. NAmEng stuff. On this specific question, I'm going to echo something someone else said above: ENGVAR and similar provisions apply to the base title, not to disambiguation terms, which on WP should be completely standardized to the extent this is possible. This also means that a dialect-based frequency analysis really isn't necessary. What we want is an across-all-RS frequency analysis (and then make sure what we get from that is actually concise, recognizable, etc.; if it's not, we might go with a second choice). That's our standard approach to all disambiguation, regardless of topic. It's how we arrived at "(film)"; while the vernacular common name is "movie", the sources of higher quality prefer "film" (despite it being technically a bit anachronistic in the digital age).

A historical example of why we need to be careful, and lean toward source aggregation and far way from nationalism/dialectism: We mostly settled the NAm. vs. British (and maybe but dubiously Commonwealth more broadly) radical difference in meanings of "series" in a TV context the conclusion was to use "(TV series)" in disambiguation because it's mutually intelligible, per MOS:COMMONALITY and, by sheer numbers WP:COMMONNAME. However, we've uneasily settled (after lots of indeterminate bickering) on permitting things like "The Americans (season 3)" yet "Absolutely Fabulous (series 3)", side by side. That's not a good idea, it's just lame failure to reach a consensus on a standard yet. (We did in fact reach one – that we're going to use "series" to mean the entire show – but it somehow got ignored later, or more likely tendentiously combatted to carve out "(series 3)" as okay by people who didn't get their way on the original series/show/program[me] disambiguation debate). So, no discussion should ever have closed in favo[u]r of using "(series X)" instead of "(season X)". There are virtually zero British readers who would not understand what "Absolutely Fabulous (season 3)" meant, even if it's not how they'd say it while talking about TV at the pub. Certainly not since the rise of the Internet, with unprecedent cross-Atlantic (and broader) availability of TV shows and forums about them. The "(series X)" disambiguator is actually a failure to disambiguate, because it is ambiguous, deeply, to all North Americans and probably many other English-speaking populations, and is even potentially confusing to British readers who notice that we use "(series)" to mean "show"/"program[me]". We cannot even presume that any given reader has any idea what the country of production was for any given TV show today (and plenty are international, even in franchises that didn't start that way – see, e.g., the third season of Doctor Who spinoff Torchwood). It's something we're going to have to revisit.

We cannot sanely contemplate introducing, on purpose, another conflict of social posturing about disambiguation actually mucking up the ability to disambiguate. In film studies, "serial" means an episodic series of theatrical short-film releases. It's a rare genre for new production right now (though Dreamworks and a few others have ventured back into it), yet remains a hugely influential and still well-studied one. The same kind of RS have sometimes also applied it to similar releases within the TV sphere. (I've seen it applied both to shorts aired between larger productions, e.g. Love, American Style, and to story arcs like named 6-episode stories of the original Doctor Who during a larger broadcast season.) It really doesn't matter that London and Edinburgh vernacular tends to use the word "serial" these days to mean "mini[-]series". This isn't BritishVernacularPedia (and keep in mind that vernacular arguments could be made by anyone. E.g., let's move Crayfish to Crawdad.) "Miniseries" is another term that no UK person is going to be confused by; it's just one they don't use every day. If American editors here can live with using logical quotation (which is rarely distinguishable from British style), and having to use "aluminium" rather than "aluminum" in chemistry and materials-science articles, and use metric converted to US customary units rather than vice versa in all science articles, then British editors can deal with using "series" in a single sense to avoid confusion between shows/program[me]s vs. broadcast seasons, and can handle using "miniseries" to avoid confusion with theatrical serials. Unless and until we fork WP into two or more dialect-specific sites, these compromises are needed for consistency and stability, for our readers much more than for our editors.

PS: A really strong indication that using "series" to mean "season" is a dead stick: check out any major torrent site that regularly uploads TV shows. When they don't abbreviate (e.g. "S01E04"), they almost uniformly use "season" not "series" to mean a broadcast season, despite the uploaders being from all over the world. TPB is hardly a reliable source for encyclopedia content, but it's a strong indicator of the ground truth of intelligibility and usage in case like this. It's good for the other question, too: If you do a TV shows searches there on "miniseries" and "mini-series", you get a raft of relevant results with nearly zero false positives. If you do the same search on "serial", you get nothing but things like false positives ("serial killer" titles, etc.), and actual serials in the filmic sense (Buck Rodgers and so on) that were mis-categorized under TV instead of film. The only exception I saw in several pages was old story arcs of the early Doctor Who, which some RS would in fact call serials), all also labeled as being in season 1 or a later season, as appropriate; it's "serial" being applied to a sub-season story arc of a British TV show.

PPS, on cleanup: an intitle: search does turn up about 50 articles with "(TV programme)" disambiguations. They're a confusing mixed bag of things that should have "(TV series)", "(miniseries)" [prefer that over the hyphenated version per WP:CONCISE)], or something else like "(TV special)" [or whatever was the result of the RfC on that one].
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• I can recall well a lot of the exhausting discussions that were required to get this naming convention off the ground - including holdover resistance on the (season X)/(series X) issue and on program/programme over something like (TV show) that had no dialect issues (and recently I found has had a massive flip in usage compared to program/me). I won't even start on the still-supported (game show) and (talk show) carved-out exceptions we still have. As far as I understand it, streaming services (lets be honest, Netflix) are having a big impact by using "season #" across regions. I'm pleasantly surprised at how few (TV programme) entries there are - I hadn't looked lately. There certainly were a lot more when this convention was being debated. Probably most were really (TV series) in disguise and have since been corrected or found other more appropriate terms. Its great you brought up TPB/torrent because I continue to be impressed by how such an adhoc/anarchic and internally competitive system has developed such rigorous naming conventions and standards of quality/service. Thanks so much for the exhaustive reply! A lot to think about. -- Netoholic @ 09:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Dick Tracy (serial) an example of a film serial article. I agree, having a disambiguation that means two completely different things is just bad practice. --Gonnym (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:British television miniseries has zero uses of "serial"

I was going over Category:British television miniseries and noticed that none of the articles that have a disambiguation use "serial" as shown in the guideline, instead they either use "TV serial", "TV series" or "miniseries" (with some unique gems like Love in a Cold Climate (TV serial, 1980)). So its clear that "serial" by itself is not used at all. Its also clear that this naming convention is really a mess. --Gonnym (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym part of the problem is the nature of British TV over the decades. From the 50's through the 80s there could be a Sunday evening drama slot from 9 to 10 pm. It might have a series that ran 10 weeks and another that ran 6 or 13. They were not miniseries in the US sense of the term they were just normal programming. This could also apply to comedy series. Somewhere in the 90s the UK did start to use the term miniseries for some - but not all - of their progamming. Today some sources tend to be label all UK progamming, from any era, miniseries (IMDb is the worst offender of this) but just be aware that they weren't at the time. Now I know this is partly WP:OR on my part but it comes from my experience of watching discussions about it over the years here at wikiP so I know that it is a thorny issue. MarnetteD|Talk 22:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

While I understand that, this guideline is still apparently being ignored if none of the articles in that category actually use "serial". So either the guideline needs to change to "TV serial", or both guideline and usage need to change as its clear that editors don't know which to pick - all 3 (TV series, TV Serial and miniseries) have a good share of usages. --Gonnym (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The "quick fix" is to change the guideline to say "TV serial" (which I support – it should be "TV serial", as per "TV series" and "TV pilot", etc.; also, there are other types of "serials", as was pointed out...). Whether it should be deprecated entirely is a longer, more-involved process that I would recommend not trying to tackle right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I said at the WP:TALKFORK higher up the page: Importantly, it really just doesn't matter what "miniseries" meant, on average, in 1981, or whether "serial" was more apt to be used in 1975 in the UK. This is not WriteLikeItsADifferentCenturyPedia. We use contemporary English now with the meanings that people expect now, not what Granny expected when Doctor Who aired for the first time or when Roots was a new release. This lawyering about the exact meanings of these terms needs to stop. We only use them to be WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE enough, as disambiguators, for people to understand their not at a page about a one-off documentary, or whatever. It only has to be good enough to disambiguate. Our titles are not descriptions or definitions of the subject; that's what the lead section is for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:John Diggle (character)#Requested move 3 July 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:John Diggle (character)#Requested move 3 July 2018. This RM involves application of this guideline. -- Netoholic @ 04:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:At the Movies (1982–90 TV series)#Requested move 14 July 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:At the Movies (1982–90 TV series)#Requested move 14 July 2018. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Calendar (American TV series)#Requested move 14 July 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Calendar (American TV series)#Requested move 14 July 2018. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Addams Family (1973 animated series)#Requested move 14 July 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Addams Family (1973 animated series)#Requested move 14 July 2018. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Vikings (TV documentary series)

Here's another one – this one is unquestionably misnamed under WP:NCTV. But it's problematic – there were two separate WP:RMs that failed earlier this year, so moving it will almost certainly require another WP:RM. On my end, I'm not sure if it is properly a "TV series" (arguably it is), or a "TV program". As Vikings (2013 TV series) (which was moved to that title after YA WP:RM – which, FTR, I opposed) is a multi-national co-production, it looks like a "by country" disambig. solution is not viable here.

Based on all of this, I think our only options here are to move Vikings (TV documentary series) to either Vikings (2012 TV series) (not very desirable, as it'll lead to confusion with the 2013 scripted TV series) or Vikings (2012 TV programme) (only a little better).

Or, we could throw caution to the wind, and just move to Vikings (UK TV series) (or Vikings (UK TV programme)) as the "better" disambiguation option.

Anyway, I'd like to get some thoughts on this before I expend the effort to launch another WP:RM here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

See the talk pages at both articles. This has been argued and argued and argued. Vikings (UK TV programme) wouldn't actually disambiguate at all since the fictional show is also a UK TV programme. It should be Vikings (2012 TV series); there isn't any reason that this would be confused with a 2013 series any more than it would be with a 2008 series, or a 2018 series. We trust that our readers can, well, read – can see the difference between "2" and "3". If they simply don't know the year, a disambiguation hatnote takes care of it, and in the majority of cases, either they will be following a link directly to the correct article, or they'll be at the DAB page where the shows are already distinguished as documentary an fictional, respectively. There really isn't a confusion scenario. If we thought "2012" versus "2013" was an issue, we'd have to scrap a large part of our entire disambiguation system, site-wide.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The fictional show is not a "UK show", but that's neither here nor there. But there has been resistance in the past to disambiguating shows by year when the years are "too close together" – see for example this previous requested move discussion (e.g. first !vote). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

If you ask the person in the streeet the differences between them, surely the first that comes to mind is that one is a drama and one is a documentary. So I would have thought these words are where disambiguation should start. Someone searching for one of them would immediately know they were wrong if they saw the word 'documentary" but wanted the drama, or vice versa. Which wouldn't always be likely if the year, or even the geographical origin, is used alone. MapReader (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is it not UK? Last I looked the BBC is British. The "resistance" is wrong because, to repeat, if we thought "2012" versus "2013" was an issue, we'd have to scrap a large part of our entire disambiguation system, site-wide. This is basically WP:LOCALCONSENSUS nonsense trying to reject site-wide disambiguation norms per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And we do not disambiguate by genre because then everyone will want to disambiguate everything by genre, and genres are often subjective/disputed or multiple.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Check the "country of origin" at the article, and then read on in the 'Production' section where it states, "An Irish-Canadian co-production, Vikings was developed and produced by Octagon Films and Take 5 Productions.[1]" The scripted drama series is not a "UK series". So, yes – we could disambiguate the 2012 docuseries "by country", as it's not "ambiguous". (And I'm not taking a position on whether we should do that – I'm just saying we could do that...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Redirects take care of that. (Redirects are cheap.) But we don't place the articles themselves at "fuzzy" disambiguation terms, and there's little that's potentially "fuzzier" than genre. Ergo, we don't primarily disambiguate by "genres", just by "format". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"We don't do that" isn't an answer, though, is it? The MoS are guidelines, to which it is sometimes sensible to make exceptions. If a drama and a documentary were made with the same title in the same year (and/or both by transnational partnerships) we'd have no choice other than to disambiguation by genre - so saying we "never" do that isn't helpful. Nor does a reason why genre isn't used in every case have any bearing on one exceptional case where it clearly makes sense. MapReader (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

No, we'd have other options – disambiguating by country, for one. The instances where two TV programs with the same title originate from the same country (or with multinational co-productions) in the same year is vanishingly small. If that ever comes up, we'll have a discussion about it them. But it's foolish to let "the exception define the rule" – the MOS NC's we've got in NCTV work in well over 99% of cases. For the rest? – That's what WP:RM discussions are for. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

What's the principal difference between these two series? One is a drama and one is a documentary. Everyone knows which is which; in this case there is no 'fuzziness' at all. It amazes me sometimes how many obstacles WP editors are willing to create and put in the way of the obvious solution. Further, re. "if the exception ever comes up, we'll consider it then" - welcome to the exception, now is "then". Disambiguation these two using two dates one year apart will help next to no-one; the geography is messy and will also be of little help to many readers. The only salient fact that almost everyone searching for one of these articles will know is whether they want the drama or the documentary. That and whether it's "the one about Ragnar". MapReader (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

And, again – this is exactly what redirects are for. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Not "exactly", at all. The large majority of people will type "Vikings" into the search box and then want to choose from whatever options come up on the screen. MapReader (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree. Redirects are useful for editors, but most readers are probably unaware of them. The title of the page that they are reading is what matters the most, and it needs to be what is clear to them directly. WP:NCTV should be adhered to, I agree, but it's not a policy. It's only a guideline, a suggestion based on the most common practices, and there will always be cases contrary to every guideline that exists on this website where common sense should be applied. As such, I don't believe the pages should be moved from the current locations. -- Alex^TW 06:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally I would insert "drama" into the 2013 one, just to make the disambiguation consistent and to avoid the current title being confused with the documentary. But you are right that there is no merit in trying to jump through the various hoops that Mr Ball is offering. MapReader (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with SMcCandlish that if there is confusion between 2012 and 2013 then based on that, there should be a lot more articles we will need to change. But then we return back to a situation where every article is disambiguated however the local consensus decides... Currently, both country and year naming styles do work for these articles: Vikings (2012 TV series) vs Vikings (2013 TV series) and Vikings (UK TV series) vs Vikings (Irish and Canadian TV series). Regardless of that, if it is decided to go another route, what would be the lesser of two evils? Genre (Vikings (documentary TV series) vs Vikings (drama TV series)) or channel (Vikings (BBC TV series) vs Vikings (History TV series))? Genre can be disputed while channels could potentially change at one point. --Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

And "History TV series" is unlikely to be parsed as "channel medium format" by the average reader; the first word it way too ambiguous.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The answer is that you create redirects at all of the suggested locations. The idea that "redirects are only useful to editors" is completely false (it's like people around here don't understand what the function of redirects is!!) – you create redirects so that the "search box" offers suggestions based on those redirects to readers typing them in (potentially, even if they are relatively implausible or rare). But we have a systematic naming convention for a reason, and it should be followed whenever possible. This case is not an example where we are forced to deviate from that convention. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

50–50 (game show) and 50/50 (children's game show)

Both 50–50 (game show) and 50/50 (children's game show) exist – the latter is British; the former is described as being "international", though it looks like the original version debuted in Italy. Anyway, the latter is clearly mis-disambiguated under WP:NCTV. So, any ideas what to move the latter, or both, to, in terms of titles?... Pinging Gonnym and Netoholic to this discussion. (See also: Fifty-Fifty.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Would seem 50–50 (game show) has no information about any specific version of the show, but an overview of the franchise, so I'd go with 50–50 (franchise). For 50/50 (children's game show) then 50/50 (game show) (I guess?). --Gonnym (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• 50–50 (game show) is nearly FOUR years marked as no sources cited. AFD. Problem solved (or at least, postponed). Other UK one can be moved to 50/50 (game show). --Netoholic @ 20:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have sent the Italian game show 50–50 to WP:AfD. I hope I don't regret this... (Incidentally, the UK game show 50/50 article is also massively under-sourced, but after some mild digging I have established that it is notable enough to get even some relatively recent coverage, and thus I agree that it merits an article...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Adventure Time (pilot)

OK, who wants to try to figure out how to handle this one?!.. Right off the bat, it's WP:GA, so I would expect resistance to moving it. It's currently misnamed, no matter how you slice it. As an episode (specifically the pilot episode) of Adventure Time, it would seem that it should be moved to Adventure Time (Adventure Time), as per WP:NCTV. The other option is Adventure Time (film), as it's described as a "short [film]", but I'm not a fan of that option... Anyway, best to figure out what to do here, before launching the WP:RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Its definitely wrong to label it as (pilot) or (pilot episode) because it was a stand-alone short which was produced outside of the normal course of series development. It aired in January 2007, and was turned into a series about two years later only after it went viral. Even though its a GA, its VERY inconsistent in what it calls it - and that may be due to trying to justify the title, rather than titling it accurately in the first place. Since we should always avoid Adventure Time (Adventure Time)-style titles and Adventure Time (film) already redirects to a section describing a feature-length film, Adventure Time (short film) might be the most clear. -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)