Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Season naming convention (continued)

Discussion

I would like to formally revisit Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 16#Season naming convention, as I recently brought up the idea of season naming convention towards the end of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Article name for two-part episodes with different titles. As per my recent comments at the latter discussion, I completely agree that the WIkiProject Television's disambiguation format does not match Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on disambiguation. I would thus propose that the title formats be updated to use a colon format, like so:

• 24 (season 1) → 24: Season 1
• In Bed with Medinner (series 1) → In Bed with Medinner: Series 1
• MacGyver (2016 TV series, season 1) → MacGyver (2016 TV series): Season 1
• The Office (American season 1) → The Office (American TV series): Season 1

This would allow us to title the latter two articles in the same format ("([disambiguator] TV series): Season [#]"), and in the same format as their parent articles (MacGyver (2016 TV series) and The Office (American TV series) respectively), as while we currently use "(American season 7)" [added: and not "(American TV series, season 7)"], we don't use "(2016 season 1)" but rather "(2016 TV series, season 1)". What are people's thoughts on this? Given the scope of the suggested change, it'll likely need to go to RFC and/or WP:VPPOL [added: and if this discussion dies out like the first discussion linked, I'll happily take this prodecure to either platform myself]. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Questions:

1. Did you mean 24 (TV series): Season 1 or 24: Season 1?
2. Why colon and not a normal sentence - The Office (American TV series) season 1?

I might have more later, but in general, I agree that the way we disambiguate season pages isn't correct. --Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the first question, I meant the latter, correct. The 24 in 24: Season 1 would not require disambiguation, because there is only one television series titled 24, but the MacGyver in MacGyver: Season 1 requires disambiguation, because it could mean either the season that aired(/series that premiered) in 1985 or 2016; that is, there are two first-seasons for a series titled MacGyver. On the second question, I just feel that the colon format is neater; it separates the show and the season, still performing some form of disambiguation, and the capitalized S just seems... nicer(?), for want of a better word. I mean, that's not to say I oppose your alternate suggestion, I'd absolutely support that as well, if that's what the majority agreed upon. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

A colon implies these are subtitles, which in 95% of cases they are not. I do agree that there should be a naming convention that is more sensible here. I tend toward being a fan of natural description titles such as season 1 of 24 (TV series). --Izno (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I left a similar comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 15#RfC about double parenthetical disambiguation which may be another point of interesting discussion to read. --Izno (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd very much disagree with listing the season first. If I type in "Season 1 of" into the search box, I would get thousands of results for thousands of shows, all likely unrelated to what I want. If I type in "[Show]: Season" into the search box, I'd get results that are all directly related to the season page I'm looking for, and quite likely the exact page I'm searching for listed almost immediately. As commented on in the first "Season naming convention" discussion, it's both worse as per WP:CONCISE and as a searchable option. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I've already said what I wanted to say on that point in the earlier RFC, so I'll decline to reply on these points. You'll get a bold oppose from me on the proposed titling as set out in your OP in some future RFC per my first response here. --Izno (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The previous RFC wasn't in regards to this particular suggestion, it regarded double disambiguation. You made a suggestion there and received opposition there, you made the same suggestion at the linked discussion and received opposition there, you've made the same suggestion here and received opposition here. Refusing to compromise or discuss is not very collaborative or contributing of you, I'm sorry to say. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

So would we then have double-colon article titles like Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Season 21? That looks awkward to me. Is there any reason we can't do pseudo-subpages like Wikiquote does (wikiquote:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit/Season 20)? -- Netoholic @ 13:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The colon suggestion isn't set in stone, it was only a suggestion to start off a discussion. (At least it wouldn't be triple-colon'ed... If we went with Gonnym's suggestion, it would be Law & Order: Special Victims Unit season 21. However, with psuedo-subpages, I believe that would violate #3 of "Disallowed uses" from WP:SUB: Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, its not a "real" subpage - it would just be using our guideline to use the "/" character as the separator for seasons. There are tons of articles that have the "/" character in use, such as N/A. -- Netoholic @ 13:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Because N/A is an actual abbreviation that properly uses "/", it's not a separator. That's not the "N" page with "A" being a subpage. There's a difference between "/" being part of the title and "/" being a subpage. In the TV case, it would act as a subpage, and we're trying to stick to Wikipedia's existing policies and guidelines by moving away from bracketed season disambiguators; moving to another modified version of an existing guideline isn't the fix - it would be considered a subpage from the wider community, given that it is a subtopic of a wider topic and thus existing at a subpage of a wider page. It would also cause faulty links on the talk page of all season pages; see Talk:N/A, and how it recommends we return to "Talk:N". -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

If any change is made to season naming (which I'm not necessarily is correct as is), I would be more in favor of Gonnym's second point, doing something like a "sentence" without a colon. That to me, like Izno said, implies subtitles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree that I've never understood the parentheticals for this purpose, but instead of a colon, I'd propose a comma. Something like "24 (TV series), season 1" or "Lost, season 3." -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

So, here we have two guidelines that are "against" each other: Disambiguation and Naming conventions (television). Why should the latter be the one to change? Can't the latter simply be an exception to the former? El Millo (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

FTR, I agree with you, and I don't think there's anything wrong with our current "parenthetical" method to season disambiguation, and am likely to oppose any proposed change to it. There's no reason to "fix" something that is already working... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The "U.S./American" and "UK/British" disambiguation was something that was already working, that ended up being "fixed", because it went against wider guidelines. Exactly the same situation here: something that's been used for years and works, but goes against the wider guideline. To answer [w]hy should the latter be the one to change, because the latter is a subset of the former. Thousands of articles are effected by the latter; millions of articles by the former. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: the change in WP:DAB would be to simply add that WP:MOSTV is an exception. El Millo (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Why make an exception, when we can allow it to conform? We could have allowed the "U.S./American" and "UK/British" disambiguation to be an exception, but we made that conform. How are these two situations different? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

My main problem is with the 24 (TV series), season 1 style –with or without commas–. ¿Has something like this, with a parenthetical disambiguation in the middle of a title, ever been done in Wikipedia? ¿Do we have another example of titles like this one that already exist? El Millo (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

A parenthetical disambiguation in the middle of a title? List of MacGyver (2016 TV series) episodes, List of Mistresses (British TV series) episodes, List of Oz (TV series) characters, and all other related LoE/LoC articles where the parent series requires disambiguation. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Well, no qualms then. But I'm still doubtul of the necessity of this change, and quite agree with IJBall's comment here below. El Millo (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Although, in the case of 24 (TV series), season 1, that wouldn't be needed. 24, season 1 would be enough. There's only one television series titled 24. 24 (season 1) → 24, season 1, it's just removing the incorrect brackets. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I know, that was just an example to refer to all TV series. El Millo (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. This is something that can be clarified through the RFC anyways, and what format we're taking. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Except it wasn't working (or was starting not to) because of "U.S." vs. "US" wars. But it's true that that change actually put WP:NCTV inline with other projects like FILM and BIO. OTOH, this proposed change just seems like "make-work", for a system that is already working quite well, and has been for a long time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that situation a "war", there were a few disagreements. Same case here, there's disagreements that the current situation does or doesn't work. This change will put NCTV into line with the correct format of disambiguation. Just because it's been this way for years, doesn't make it correc, it makes it old. Clearly it wasn't working overly well, if there needed to be an RFC for double disambiguation; changing to the suggested format removes any need for that at all.

For example, with The Flash (2014 TV series) and The Flash (season 1), the current setup implies that these are two separate media entities: a 2014 TV series titled The Flash, and a Season 1 titled The Flash. That is not the case. Moving it to a comma-case will remove this incorrect disambiguation. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Just wanted to point out that Name of Show: season 1 would be more in keeping with the project's preference for less capitalization. Personally capitals after a colon give me the heebie-jeebies. My understanding is that they are considered acceptable/normal if what follows the colon is a complete sentence but this is not that case, and we do not do title case for article titles except when the article title is the name of a work. In this case, the name of the work is "Name of Show", so "series N" and "season N" should be rendered without capitalization.

Overall I think this is a solution looking for a problem... while parenthetical disambiguation is not ideal, it fits best here. My next choice after parentheses would be a comma, since then "season N" or "series N" looks less like a subtitle and we could save colons for actual subtitles. So Name of Show, series 1 or Name of Show, season 3. And I guess Name of Show (Canadian TV series), season 2. That also avoids having two disambiguators within the parentheses.

So:

• 24 (season 1) → 24, season 1
• In Bed with Medinner (series 1) → In Bed with Medinner, series 1
• MacGyver (2016 TV series, season 1) → MacGyver (2016 TV series), season 1
• The Office (American season 1) → The Office (American TV series), season 1

YMMV —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Also also, for some levity based on possibly the worse-named show I've ever encountered, god help us if we ever have to do season articles for High School Musical: The Musical: The Series if we change to colons:

• High School Musical: The Musical: The Series: season 1

Ahhhhhh! —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot more support for commas over colons, and that's something that I can agree with, as it reads as a actual title, and still allows for identical disambiguation of the parent series *such as in the case of MacGyver and The Office, where the disambiguation changes based on the base year/country disambiguation).

All in all, it'll absolutely need to be taken to a definitive RFC, in the same manner as the "U.S./American" and "UK/British" disambiguation RFC. I'll wait a couple more days for some more views, and then open it. I've already got it typed up with three questions (format (5 options, plus status quo), capitalization and disambiguation). -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Glad there's more support for commas. The layout of User:Joeyconnick's examples above remains my preference. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The title should also take into account the associated category name if we are already fixing these. Category:The Office (American TV series), season 1 episodes still seems a bit off while without the comma it reads better Category:The Office (American TV series) season 1 episodes. For reference Category:The Office (American season 1) episodes. --Gonnym (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

While I think this may be searching for a solution for a problem that doesn't exist, if there is that need or consensus to move away from the parenthetical format, I will note the comma version is supported by various court reported sets, eg List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 591. But alternatively, you could do "Season 1 of (show)" whhich would make any additional national/remake disambiguation easy to add to the end. --Masem (t) 18:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It's already been brought up that listing the season first is both worse as per WP:CONCISE and as a searchable option, since, as Alex21 put it, If I type in "Season 1 of" into the search box, I would get thousands of results for thousands of shows, all likely unrelated to what I want. If I type in "[Show]: Season" into the search box, I'd get results that are all directly related to the season page I'm looking for, and quite likely the exact page I'm searching for listed almost immediately El Millo (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

But on the search part, we'd still be keeping redirects (those will not go away) so that fill-in as you type will remain. --Masem (t) 19:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC: What should the naming convention for television season articles be?

Question A : Should the naming convention for television season articles be changed from its current format, and if so, to what alternate format?

1. Show (season 1) → Show: season 1 (colon)
2. Show (season 1) → Show, season 1 (comma)
3. Show (season 1) → Show season 1 (spaced)
4. Show (season 1) → Show/season 1 (slashed)
5. Show (season 1) → season 1 of Show (described)
6. Alternate suggestion not given above
7. Do not change

Question B : In the case of changing the format, should the term "season" (or related term, including "series", etc.) be capitalized or lowercased? (The options below use the colon example only for visualization.)

1. Show, Season 1 (capitalized)
2. Show, season 1 (lowercased)

Question C : In the case of changing the format, should the parent series always include disambiguation or only when necessary? (The options below use the colon example only for visualization.)

Example: 24 (TV series); 24 (season 1) to 24 (TV series), season 1 or 24, season 1

Example: MacGyver (2016 TV series); MacGyver (2016 TV series, season 1) to MacGyver (2016 TV series), season 1

1. Show (show disambiguation), season 1 (always required)
2. Show, season 1 (only when necessary)

-- /Alex/₂₁ 00:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• A.1 A.2, B.2, C.2 I initially suggested colons in the above discussion, but I see how commas makes more sense, given that the season number is not a subtitle of the series. The comma also separates the season from the series, as the spaced format does not, slashed is a violation of WP:SUB, and described is a violation of WP:CONCISE. Disambiguation should only be included as necessary; for example, there's no need for 24 (TV series), season 1 when 24, season 1 works as well and is more concise; same as how we don't disambiguate shows that don't need it, like Stranger Things over Stranger Things (TV series). -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  Wait, Alex 21, you still voted for A.1, which is the colon, but here you say that you "see how commas makes more sense". Just checking if it was intentional or a mistake. El Millo (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  Facu-el Millo, you are completely correct, thanks for that, I thought I put commas first when I wrote the RFC up. Thanks again! -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• 7 aka do not change. This is a clear case of WP:AINTBROKE. -- Calidum 00:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  Calidum, here's something I stated in the discussion above that may interest you. For example, with The Flash (2014 TV series) and The Flash (season 1), the current setup implies that these are two separate media entities: a 2014 TV series titled The Flash, and a Season 1 titled The Flash; the latter is a subset of the former program, and they are not titled identically. That is not the case, thus broken disambiguation. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• A.7, or do not change. I think we are dealing with a concept of disambiguation that is too strict, and I see it as a WP:NOTBROKE situation; these seasons do not have proper titles, so the name of the series they belong to is the closest thing to a title they have. That said, if a change is supported by the majority: A.3 (spaced) would work just fine, as the difference between the italics of the title and the season X in straight font is enough of a separation; B.2 (lowercased), as there's no reason for it to be capitalized since it isn't a proper noun or its title per se; and lastly C.2 (only when necessary), which is quite self-explanatory. El Millo (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• A.7, agree with the others regarding WP:AINTBROKE. If I had to choose a new option for this, I'd go with A.3 as it feels like most logical of the new options. If changed, I'd support B.2 and C.2. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• A.7, as per my comments in the previous discussion (that this is "a solution in search of a problem, that doesn't exist"...), and as per others' comments here. I don't believe the current disambig. system will be changed, but I also agree that A.2, B.2 and C.2 are the way to go if it is. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• A.2, B.2, C.2. The parenthetical disambiguation for season articles never made any sense to me. Grammatically, the parentheses in my view emphasize the series itself and make the season seem like an afterthought, whereas the article is actually about the season. Sure, "it ain't broke," but no one has pointed out a downside to improving this naming convention. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• To me, the most readable handling is eliminating the "double disambiguation" within parenthesis as currently done. That means a combination of A7 / A3 such that if the main series is disambiguated from other series already, use A3, otherwise A7 - which would give us respectively The Office (American TV series) season 1 and Glee (season 4). This also uses C2 when necessary only when there are other series articles which conflict with the main article C1 otherwise - for example, Glee (season 1) is sufficient because there is only one series named "Glee", but in most cases the main article's full disambiguation could carry over - The Office (American season 1) is bad, and really should be The Office (American TV series) season 1. Obviously, keep it lowercased per B2. -- Netoholic @ 19:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Netoholic: why is The Office (American season 1) bad? Is it not enough to distinguish it from other articles? El Millo (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  Its inconsistent and reads poorly. Its not an article about an "American season" - its about a season of an American TV series. I believe in an attempt to be concise, that case has forgotten what it means to be clear. I'm actually really curious how that got moved in 2010 despite consensus against the move in this RM. -- Netoholic @ 20:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think that was because the use of (American season X) instead of (American TV series) season X was already included in WP:NCTV. El Millo (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  I think it's very similar to how we use "(American season 1)" over "(American TV series, season 1)", but then in the opposite format, we use "(2016 TV series, season 1)" over "(2016 season 1)". Why not just use "(American TV series) season 1" and "(2016 TV series) season 1"? -- /Alex/₂₁ 20:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  We will if the consensus is in favor of making a change. But if consensus is in favor of A7, using that would be even more inconsistent. I think the difference between disambiguators by nationality and by year you brought up is interesting and worth discussing once this RfC is done though, should "no change" prevail. El Millo (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• A.3, B.2, C.2 I can see how over time, the use of "Series (season X)" naming came about, but I also agree with Alex's points that that isn't actually proper disambiguation formatting. I support the changes I said, but should consensus be reached that things stay as they are, I would not take issue to that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• A.2, B.2, C.2 I'm not dying change it but I guess it doesn't make sense for the season number to be in parentheses when it's the topic of the article. Heartfox (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• A7 (aka no change) — as per my original post when discussing. If (and only if) consensus is to change, and this is not to weaken my opposition to changing things and so is definitely not a !vote for the options, then I would pick A2, B2, C2. C2 because I believe WP:CONCISE overrides any drive for totally consistent naming. There's naming inconsistencies all over the project... we shouldn't be using disambiguation that isn't necessary just to achieve consistency. Note that's why The Flash (2014 TV series) is labelled one way but The Flash (season 1) doesn't include "2014 TV series"—because the other Flash TV series has no season articles so there is no ambiguity to explain. Skipping that unnecessary disambiguation was the right call then and it remains so now. Also, even if it's the consensus, I don't believe B1 (capitalized disambiguator) is valid because it violates WP:SENTENCECASE. It definitely does if we go with commas, and it violates MOS:COLON if we go with colons. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Flesh and Blood (TV drama)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Flesh and Blood (TV drama). Issue here is what to move a new article to for correct titling/disambiguation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Potential guidleline issue, re: characters

From the 'Episode and character articles' section, it says "For characters, typically the full name is used, if known, for the title of the article except when an alias or other name is much more common."

I think this guidance is flawed – what is said would be true for WP:BLPs, but characters are fictional and these articles not real "biographies". The article/etc. should always be at the WP:COMMONNAME title, period. In other words, it should only be at the "full name" if the full name is the common name. This is directly relevant in a couple of cases I've come across lately: Cosmo Kramer vs. Kramer (Seinfeld) (I'd argue the article should be at the latter), and the redirect at Gibby Gibson which again I'd argue should be at Gibby (iCarly).

So, I'd advocate that we reword the sentence from the guideline above to say something like, "For characters, the title of the article should always conform to the character's common name." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'll have to oppose that. There are many examples, including the Cosmo Kramer one, where I'd support the full name. --Gonnym (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  Under what justification? Fictional character should always be at WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not saying you can't have other redirects – but the guideline should instruct that the title should be under the WP:COMMONNAME. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• WP:NATURALDIS is easier to deal with than attaching arbitrary parenthetical series names. --Izno (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • For biographies (and most other topics), I fully agree with that approach. For fictional characters, that can be a downright horrible approach! The Gibby Gibson case is directly relevant here – that name is mentioned once over the entire course of the iCarly TV series, and I'm not even 100% that this wasn't a joke, and that that's not the character's name. Worse, most editors looking for Gibby are not going to be looking for Gibby Gibson. At least with Cosmo Kramer, it's somewhat arguable and has gotten a lot of coverage (though even there I would still argue that Kramer (Seinfeld) is the true WP:COMMONNAME). But this "full names" for fictional characters nonsense is just begging for IP editors to dig up "full names" that were used all of once, or as an "aside", in a TV series, and then putting articles (or redirects) there. With fictional characters, there is no "birth certificate" that we can look up to even confirm that the "full name" is accurate. We need these to be at the WP:COMMONNAME, starting with that's where editors will be looking for them! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Magnum, P.I. § Requested move 10 December 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Magnum, P.I. § Requested move 10 December 2020. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Additional disambiguation

I'd like to revisit why this change [1] was made to the additional disambiguation section. The only discussion on this talk page I can find relevant to the proposed change was here which I don't believe ended with any proper consensus one way or the other. The change in question is now being used to ramrod through additional RMs, which are then cited as proof of consensus for this so-called preference, creating a weird sort of feedback loop. -- Calidum 13:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

So you're just ignoring all the RM's listed at the top of that discussion? (And there are likely others that predate those that I couldn't find.) Because that establishes the consensus. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The RMs cannot establish a consensus that was rejected in the same discussion. -- Calidum 14:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! Guidelines should be bottom-up, not top-down. Multiple RMs have established a preference for "by country" disambig (which, BTW, does not mean it must be used in every instance – simply that it is preferred in most instances). How else do you establish "consensus" except with multiple discussions over years on the same topic. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Calidum is spot-on. I completely agree with the observation that the edit (and some barely-attended RMs) -are- being used as a ramrod. Since the inception of this guideline, we've always acknowledged that there are two, roughly co-equal, methods of additional disambiguation using either year or country. Both are extremely valuable tools in their own way, and we should not specifically "prefer" one overall compared to the other. Sometimes, the most differentiation is done by using country (like in the case of multiple versions of a single franchise), or year (such as reboot series in the same country. Also, country distinction is becoming less and less clear over time as more productions are produced in or financed by multiple countries, and are broadcast or streamable all across the world. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that country is generally a better disambiguator and should be preferred. To repeat my arguments from the NextStep RM: For example, Mayday (Canadian TV series) was also broadcast on Discovery Channel in my European country (and in dozens of others) since mid-2010s; I immediately learned it was Canadian from its closing credits. I would hardly be convinced to support moving it to Mayday (2003 TV series) to distinguish it from Mayday (2013 TV series), since I have no idea when the first season was recorded. I grant that there could be occasional exception, particularly when the years are far apart and the country of origin is not clear. Heck, we will soon lose the concept of "country of origin" and start disambiguating by "(Netflix series)" or such. No such user (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A TV series can be filmed in Canada and still be an American series. See 21 Jump Street. -- Calidum 16:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, that is determined by "country of origin" – i.e. who pays for it. Shows like that are usually still clear that they are American productions even in filmed in Canada... That said, it is already established that in cases of bi- or multi-national productions, then we do tend to disambiguate by year. But where something is filmed ≠ "country of origin" in many cases, no matter how many times IP editors tend to get confused by this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Country of origin" has nothing to do with WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation, which refers only to country of broadcast, so this whole argument is baseless. -- Netoholic @ 17:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Answered in Talk:The Next Step (2013 TV series)#Requested move 21 September 2021 – please pick one location for this discussion, and stick to that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the guideline should be discussed here and only here. You're the one splitting the discussion by using an RM to misleadingly use your "country of origin" preference when the guideline is written intentionally and clearly as "country of broadcast". -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Group of related series

There are a group of related series on BBC television: same format, different titles - Yorkshire Walks, Winter Walks (2 series), Walking with ... (not to be confused with Walking with... about dinosaurs etc!). Same producer: Cy Chadwick; same format: a walker, superb scenery, a 360-degree camera on a selfie-stick, a drone, on-screen informative captions, interviews with people encountered, the odd poem. Editors interested in choice of titles for TV articles might like to join the discussion at Talk:Walking with... (BBC Four series). PamD 16:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Article with Non-Standard Title Disambiguation Needs Cleanup

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television § Article with Non-Standard Title Disambiguation Needs Cleanup. Discussion is about article with non-standard title disambiguation likely needing an article move to standard disambiguation under NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This is more of an issue than I realized – would appreciate more NCTV regulars taking a look at this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of move discussion

A move discussion has been opened at Talk:Van der Valk#Requested move 4 April 2023, since the recent move to add the date of that series to the article title was reverted as undiscussed. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Style for name of longer work appearing a part of a series

Is a play that appears as part of a television anthology series to be considered as an "episode" of that series (and have its title displayed in "quotation marks" as a short work) or should it be considered a longer work as indicated by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Major works which included Plays (including published screenplays and teleplays) as a major work? For context, this came to my attention with disagreement with Gonnym over Shadow of a Pale Horse (The United States Steel Hour). Note that Template:Infobox television episode defaults to quotation marks, so a related question if a television play is a longer work, what infobox template should be used? older ≠ wiser 11:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

There are (as far as I can tell) two types of television plays. Television plays which are stand-alone productions and are similar to television films. These are of the "major works" type, which means they use italics, {{Infobox television}}, {{IMDb title}}, etc. The other type are productions which are part of anthology television series, which means they are of the type "minor works" and should use quotation marks, {{Infobox television episode}}, {{IMDb episode}}, etc. Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems highly inconsistent that the same work if presented as part of an anthology series is a minor work, while that same work if produced as a standalone film or teleplay makes it a major work. An anthology series (especially in early TV history) is more a showcase for presenting standalone works than a coherent episodic series. older ≠ wiser 11:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with this – standalone "plays for television" function as TV movies. But those as part of an anthology series (e.g. Playhouse 90) would function as "episodes". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I would italicize a play just as I would italicize a serial from Doctor Who (e.g. An Unearthly Child); a serial belongs under MOS:MAJORWORK just as a play does. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Minor works: Single episodes or plot arcs of a television series or other serial audio-visual program would indicate incorrect usage at An Unearthly Child. Gonnym (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The italicization of serials within Doctor Who is a very solid consensus at WP:WPDW, and follows WP:WHO/MOS. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:NCT" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:NCT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 15 § Wikipedia:NCT until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Partial disambiguation

WP:PFILM dictates that secondary-topic films with the same title should always be disambiguated from each other by year, even if one of the films is the clear primary topic, overriding WP:PDAB. WP:NCTVUS does not specify what to do in this situation, so I'm wondering what the current consensus is among WikiProject Television. I ask because I was going to move One Piece (TV series) to accommodate One Piece (2023 TV series), but then noticed a recent RM on the talk page which opposed doing so. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

See WP:INCDAB: "In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation." I believe this is the so-called "primary subtopic" exception. There are some of these out there, I think even under WP:NCFILM. If a RM discussion determines this, as it did in the case of One Piece (TV series), then you need to leave it be. There are definitely a few TV series that are "primary subtopic" cases, though I can't recall a specific one right now. Sidenote: I do find it odd that the article for the 2023 One Piece TV series doesn't seem to mention the 1999 animated series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, RMs that moved Titanic (1997 film) and Parasite (2019 film) were both overturned, partially on the grounds of PFILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The (only) two currently known exceptions to WP:PFILM are Rustin (film) and Willow (film), per WP:PDABLIST. The three known cases for TV series are One Piece (TV series), The Boys (TV series) and The Office (American TV series). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

And Vikings (TV series). -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

And Revolver (TV series), although that is a somewhat special case. There is no article devoted to the other show, but it is mentioned in the article about at least one of the actors. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, Rustin (film) has the same quirk as Revolver (TV series). There is no article devoted to the other Rustin film – only an article about a person who directed and co-starred in it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:PFILM gives as one example: Miracle on 34th Street (the 1947 film), Miracle on 34th Street (1973 film) and Miracle on 34th Street (1994 film) – The original film is regarded as the primary topic so the other two adaptations are disambiguated. -- so there is no requirement that "films with the same title should always be disambiguated from each other by year, even if one of the films is the clear primary topic". older ≠ wiser 02:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me clarify. The Titanic example at WP:PFILM is what I am talking about, not Miracle on 34th Street. Like Titanic, the primary, undisambiguated topic of One Piece is not a TV series but a manga, but there are two TV series called One Piece, one of which (the 1999 one) is the primary topic between the two. If this were a film, we would promptly move One Piece (TV series) to One Piece (1999 TV series) in accordance with PFILM, just like we did with Titanic and Avatar and Parasite, but this is a TV series, which is why I ask whether WikiProject Television allows for partial/incomplete disambiguation (which WikiProject Film doesn't). InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I answered above – "primary subtopics" are allowed in some limited cases, and I'm pretty sure yours isn't the only example of that under WP:NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see the list given above. There are currently (only) three four identified instances of partially disambiguated TV series article titles, although AFAIK there is no explicit prohibition for TV shows like there is for films. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

And there shouldn't be one for films, as it's WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. But it's not like I care enough to make a stink about it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It's kind of silly that we send readers looking for Avatar (film), Independence Day (film), or even The Wizard of Oz (film), to dab pages instead of the articles they want. I'm a little surprised Casablanca (film) hasn't been redirected yet because someone someday might possibly be looking for Pirate Submarine. - Station1 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the guideline itself, but WP:PFILM directly addresses the notion that it is "local consensus": While the general guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation allows for incomplete disambiguation, the film-naming conventions guideline prefers disambiguating all secondary-topic films from each other. Policy at WP:PRECISION permits such Wikipedia project-specific naming criteria. In any case, this talk page isn't the right place to object to/complain about NCFILM... InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

At least it says "prefers" rather than requires – that leaves some wiggle-room. But if only WP:FILM editors are showing up at these RM discussions, they will have their way. Personally, had I known about the Titanic and Avatar RM discussions, I certainly would have voted in favor of the "primary subtopic" exception for these. And moving Casablanca to "1942 film" would be even more uncalled for. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:NCTVUS vs. WP:CONSISTENT

Hi. I would like to request for some comments regarding the recent RM in Talk:Lost (South Korean TV series). Currently, there are only three TV series titled Lost per Lost#Television: one South Korean and two American. In this case, which additional disambiguation should we use for the South Korean TV series—language/country or year (for consistency per nom)? Thank you in advance! Accireioj (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Correct disambiguation

Hi. What is the correct disambiguation for original series of OTT streaming services like Netflix, Disney+, etc. I saw some inconsistency. For example: Cigarette Girl uses "(TV series)", while Chicken Nugget uses "(web series)" (both are Netflix original series). Thank you in advance! Accireioj (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"(TV series)" should be used if they are appearing on a streaming service. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple Season 1's of a show

There seems to be a naming issue with it comes to Doctor Who, and editors that are not aware of naming guidelines and policies are already jumping on board the issue. For those who don't keep track of the show: The original era of the show used Season 1 to 26 from 1963 to 1989, then this reset with its return from hiatus in 2005 to Series 1, through to Series 13 in 2022. The original revival showrunner from 2005-2010 has returned with the upcoming season of Doctor Who, and has deemed the upcoming series as a newly "Season 1", instead of continuing on from the current numbering scheme. Multiple sources corroborate this, as does the original network, and this is why there are attempts to rename the article (or at least discuss it).

Now this might be too early to actually discuss, but if some form of discussion is held, that determines that Doctor Who (series 14) should be moved to a "Season 1" title, despite Doctor Who (season 1) existing, how would NCTV support the disambiguation between the 1963 season 1, and the 2024 season 1, given that they're not new seasons of different revivals but it's all still technically part of the same show? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably something like Doctor Who (season 1, 2023) (though if any change to the naming convention above passes, I guess the disambiguation would be much cleaner Doctor Who season 1 (2023)) Gonnym (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Given further updates, I've started an RFC at Talk:Doctor Who (series 14)#RFC: Title of this article, and following seasons. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Move/rename discussion for Critical Role campaign articles

A series of articles which may be of interest to members of this project—Critical Role (campaign one), Critical Role (campaign two), and Critical Role (campaign three)—has been proposed for renaming. If you are interested, please participate in the move discussion. Thank you. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Move TV seasons from parenthetical disambiguation to comma disambiguation

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

---

Wikipedia has thousands of articles on TV seasons of specific shows at titles like The Crown (season 4), Shark Tank (season 12), and One Piece (season 20). However, unlike disambiguators that disambiguate different kinds of things sharing the same name, like Mercury (planet)/Mercury (element)/Mercury (mythology), these are really merely instances of the same things. I propose that the titling scheme should be changed to comma disambiguation, so that titles like the above would be at The Crown, season 4, Shark Tank, season 12, and One Piece, season 20. I believe that this is a more natural disambiguation scheme, and would enable us to avoid the current phenomenon of actual disambiguation pages at titles like Degrassi (season 1), Dynasty (season 3), The Great British Baking Show (season 5), and Secret Story (season 7).

Shows with other ambiguous elements would continue to use parentheses for those elements, so MacGyver (2016 TV series, season 5) would become MacGyver (2016 TV series), season 5 and The Voice (Australian season 7) would become The Voice (Australia), season 7. There are, by my count, 6,334 articles on TV show seasons with "(season X)" parentheticals. There is some additional number using parentheticals for "series" (used in the sense of a season, rather than as a "TV series") rather than "season", which would also be covered by this proposal. BD2412 T 04:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh I already tried that in 2020, the whole thing is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 17#Season naming convention (continued), but as far as I can tell, the general idea "don't fix what isn't broken", even if I agree that it's absolutely broken and against Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines. You are quite correct: if Mercury (mythology) concerns the concept called Mercury that is specifically from mythology, by the same rules, One Piece (season 20) would concern the concept called One Piece that is specifically from some "season 20", which makes zero sense. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Just adding a link to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 17#RFC: What should the naming convention for television season articles be? as well, to show the clear options given for commas. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support, despite the amount of work it will entail, because this would fix several confusing disambiguation-related problems at the same time (while introducing no new ones), and will better comply with policy (WP:NATURALDIS instructs us to use natural disambiguation or failing that then comma disambiguation styles before resorting to parenthetical; they are in top-bottom order for a reason, just like the WP:CRITERIA are). I'm not perturbed at all that a previous proposal vaguely similar to this (but in favor of colons) failed to gain consensus, since many changes take more than one proposal, and this one is has clearer rationales than the old one, and is much better aligned with our title practices (the colon style is almost exclusively used for articles split up for length into a series of regular segements, like "List of [whatevers]: A–M", etc., and even this is sometimes done with commas or parens instead today).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support, but calling the part between the parentheses "disambiguation" is incorrect. The article is on a specific season of a TV show, not different TV shows by the same name where "season x" is the way of differentiating them. Put another way, the season number is an integral part of the title. Because of this confusion, renaming them is absolutely the way to go. I actually think dropping all punctuation is the most natural, preferring "Shark Tank season 12" to both "Shark Tank, season 12" and "Shark Tank (season 12)". -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Unsure yet, but oppose the part of The Voice (Australian season 7) would become The Voice (Australia), season 7. The correct title would be The Voice (Australian TV series), season 7 per the actual article at The Voice (Australian TV series). We shouldn't make up different titles in the season articles. Additional note, if this proposal passes, please ping me as it requires module updates. Gonnym (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's a good point, but a minor one and probably shouldn't lead to a blanket "oppose"; this is something that could be tweaked in the proposed language easily.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't blanket oppose, I specifically wrote that I oppose only that part. Gonnym (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would argue that the "season 7" element makes it clear that this is a TV series, but I have no problem with following the primary topic title to the extent that these are an issue. BD2412 T 19:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yuk! Looks awful and not an improvement in any way. Solution in search of a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • The problem is that Wikipedia has long adopted the convention of using parentheticals to indicate actual ambiguity between topics. George Washington (trombonist) is a different person from George Washington, not an instance of the president being a trombonist. Seasons of the same TV series are not ambiguous to each other, as they are related. BD2412 T 16:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • That seems too subjective and insubstantial to be consensus-formation meaningful in any way, Necrothesp. The actual problems have been clearly identified, so claiming it's "in search of a problem" is clearly false.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    • They may have been "identified", but that doesn't mean I have to agree that they're a problem! I don't. I have never, ever looked at this and thought, "oh dear, that's a problem"! All I can see here is a proposal to take something that looks perfectly good and works perfectly well and change it for the sake of it (and make it look awful). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

      Except problems with this have already been identified in this discussion, including issues with Wikidata, and how it does not conform with Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines, thus it does not "work perfectly well". Whether you consider it a problem because you haven't personally had to deal with it is is irrelevant; if it is a problem for anyone outside yourself, then it remains a problem. -- Alex_21 _TALK 19:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Question: Why a comma rather than, say, a colon (One Piece: Season 20) or nothing at all (The Simpsons Season 33 / The Simpsons season 33)? Both are also in usage in listings and reviews and commentaries. Just asking to really grasp all the particulars on it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support in principle because the current naming convention violates core disambiguation principles. However, I would prefer a colon over a comma, as the latter looks a bit ugly to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @TenTonParasol and King of Hearts: have you ever seen colons used in titles in Wikipedia other than to indicate formal subtitles, where the colon is part of the published name of the media? BD2412 T 16:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    There's technically an argument to be made that this is comparable to a subtitle or is arguably sometimes (often?) treated like one: The Crown: Season 3, Mad Men: Season 3 (in the where to buy), The Legend of Vox Machina: Season 2 review (though no punctuation in the body!), The Simpsons: Season 35 (page title up in the tab). Hence why I bring it up. The colons aren't even my preference, really.

    Personally, I think the comma into a lowercase looks extremely sloppy. Arguably, it's preferable to go "The Crown Season 3", no space, treat season like a proper noun—and arguably it's treated like one by many sources anyway in this context. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    I am not terribly opposed to no punctuation, since a season of a show is its own discrete entity. BD2412 T 18:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    I am terribly opposed to it, since its extremly confusing to anyone not already familar with what the article is about. And as for TonTonParasol's additional ideas, WP does not "treat [something] like a proper noun" if it isn't one, and we don't capitalize things unless they are capitalized in an overwhelming majority of RS ("many" doesn't cut it); see top of MOS:CAPS, and see also MOS:SIGCAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    Proper noun is the wrong phrase, used because I couldn't come up with a better one. I should've said "as arguable part of the title of the discrete entity that is the season". Press release for The Legend of Vox Machina has some interesting splits in it on that, one that AMC does not do in a Mad Men press release, but HBO capitalizes it throughout their official page for GoT as does Netflix. I don't actually feel very strongly about the capitalization, and "proper noun" is a slip on my part. I was attempting to observe that it is often considered part of the title of the concept of the season. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    To add, I agree with BD2412 stating above, though in a different context, that "season" would make it clear that this is a television series. I don't actually think it's likely that a reader will see "The Crown Season 3" or "The Simpsons season 34" and get confused about what the article is about, since that's how these things are referred to in common parlance anyway. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    That's just blindly assuming that the reader knows that The Crown is the title of a TV show. And season has mutiple meanings. There are lots of movies with "Season" in their titles, and if they have sequels they result in your preferred format for TV shows seasons; Open Season 2 is a real-world example that it only took me 15 seconds to find. So, this is provably confusing. I don't think "arguable part of the title of the discrete entity that is the season" really means anything concrete. And WP doesn't care what a couple of other websites prefer as their internal writing style – especially since they are in the business of selling access to these things as discrete "products", so they are inclined to view something like The Crown: Season 2 or The Crown, season 2 or whatever as a unitary name for an item of product, which has nothing to do with what WP is doing or thinking, or what our readers are for that matter. And the fact that people in the common parlance say aloud "The Crown season 2" has no implications of any kind for how we capitalize and punctuate, nor does how people write in social media, which is pretty much devoid of any semblance of typographic norms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    I brought up common parlance per an idea that we can possibly expect readers broadly to be generally familiar with a 'title season number' construction. Most readers would probably parse "Loki season 2", "Loki: Season 2", "Loki - season 2", "Loki, Season 2", "Loki (season 2)", and "Season 2 of Loki" with equal comprehension. So, I don't think no separator would extremely confusing as a result. Common parlance offers no guidance as to which to pick, but it leads me to believe that they'd all be reasonably expected and understandable.

    Still, the argument does push me to find no punctuation with a lowercase preferable at this time. Functionally, it drops parentheses in most cases, "Loki season 2". Short descriptions and hatnotes further help readers confirm it's what they're looking for. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    An argument that a season identifier after the series title "is comparable to a subtitle" isn't "technical" in any way; it's just confusion as to what "subtitle" means. The fact that a few publications like to punctuate these things with a colon really has nothing to do with what it is, nor with what WP should use for our internal article-titling practices, especially when we have a need to distinguish between something like "Show Title, season 2" (specificity) and "Show Title (Country TV series)" (true disambiguation).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    I think you're trying to argue that "Loki season 2" is somehow more natural than "Loki, season 2" or "Loki: season 2" or "Loki (season 2)", but we have no evidence suggesting this, and if the principle were generalizable and demonstrable, we would not use comma, colon, or parenthetial disambiguation in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

    I'm just imagining what arguments may be made to go through the process of eliminating other solutions, and the colon is rather common in streaming listings, DVD listings, official website subsections, and publications, so I just wanted it addressed since it's a familiar convention. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    Probably more productive to let people raise objections if they have rationales for them rather than try to invent ones you don't hold but imagine that someone else might hold.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle. Ranked preferences for format would be 1) no punctuation and lower case; 2) colon and lower case; 3) any of the other alternatives to parentheses suggested so far. older ≠ wiser 17:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support in principle, with a preference for no separator as that appears to be the most common approach in the (few) sources I spot-checked. I’d be open to another separator character if there were good source evidence for that usage, but if there’s no consensus amongst sources then simpler seems better. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with this, I vaguely recall noticing it a couple of times and being slightly confused at why we had parentheses there, it doesn't really seem to fit. I thought it might have been done to be useful for piping, in case an editor would just want to type something like "In 2023, Smith acted in [[Some Series (season 3)|]], ..." but it seems improbable because it doesn't scale beyond a single season, and if we mention an acting role beyond a list entry it's often going to be because it was multiple seasons, and besides, I don't know that we want to point an average reader reading a biography to a specific season with a pipe link anyway. --Joy (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support but with no punctuation, and lower case. And use full "country TV series) to disambig countries). Hyperbolick (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for the following reasons:
  1. It looks horrendous and messy. Call this an IDONTLIKEIT comment, but I do think readability is a valid concern when it comes to article titles.
  2. To say that comma-separated disambiguation is more natural than parenthetical disambiguation is false. WP:NCDAB lists the three forms of disambiguation as natural, comma-separated, and parenthetical. Comma-separated disambiguation is therefore no more natural or unnatural than parenthetical disambiguation.
  3. It is also inaccurate to say that parenthetical disambiguation disambiguate[s] different kinds of things sharing the same name while comma-separated disambiguation does not. "Berkshire" in Windsor, Berkshire describes the larger area which the article subject is situated in, while "Princess of Wales" Diana, Princess of Wales describes who/what the article subject is. That means a comma functions the same way as parentheses, as outlined at WP:NCDAB.
  4. Colons, not commas, are usually the go-to choice for indicating subtopics or "split" articles. See WP:NCSPLITLIST, for example. But in this case, a colon for season articles will only create complications for series whose titles already have a colon.
  5. The two comma-separated examples I listed above, Windsor, Berkshire and Diana, Princess of Wales, are constructions that are already commonly used outside of Wikipedia. Something like Loki, season 2, however, is not. If you look at sources online, sources usually go with Loki season 2 (the italics are sometimes swapped for quotation marks, depending on the source's style guide, and "season" is sometimes capitalized). Theoretically, that could work for us, but in my opinion that too looks messy and creates readibility issues.
  6. WP:ATWP:NCDAB is a guideline, not a policy. If there is no breach in policy, and the circumstances clearly warrant an WP:IAR situation, and parenthetical disambiguation has already been in place for a very long time, there is no reason for us to make such a drastic and meaningless change. WP:AINTBROKE.

Also, this discussion needs to be advertised in more places, including WikiProjects with TV season articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Um, WP:AT is actually policy :D Also, I don't quite understand the point about colons, when the linked naming convention for lists says it's a preferred model, and then immediately says a comma model is common and acceptable. --Joy (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, MOS:TITLE says we can use {{Italic title|string=Loki}} for the partially italicized style you mentioned. --Joy (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant NCDAB, not AT. I know about {{Italic title}}, but that still isn't as neat as having parentheses. My point about colons is that commas usually function the same as parentheses (for example with th Windsor and Diana examples), in which case there is no reason to change. MOS:VAR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: Entire premise (yours and the OP) is faulty, isn’t it, though? Since these are unambiguous topics. Your point that there should be no commas or parens (eg with Loki season 2) is right on, though. Would only ever need parens if there were two different series with multiple seasons like a Loki (Australian TV series) season 2 Hyperbolick (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The point is that it looks messier without parentheses. Sure, you can argue that's a cosmetic/ILIKEIT argument, but again, we should make sure our article titles are easy on readers' eyes. This isn't a disambiguation situation, therefore we are free to choose whatever method works best. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a disambiguation situation, therefore we are free to choose whatever method works best. Are there really no rules for titles of unambiguous works? Not common mame, even? Hyperbolick (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

(season 2) vs. , season 2 vs. season 2 isn't a matter of common vs. uncommon name, it's a matter of styling the already common name. The COMMONNAME argument would apply to a proposal to switch to (series 2) or (part 2) or whatever. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose or more specifically, allow comma use on a case-by-case basis. With several older programs, the nature of seasons really didn't matter, so calling something like, for example "Cheers, season 1" would not make any sense. There are programs that the season or series numbers does matter, namely something like Doctor Who where this comma usage would make sense, but that should not be established as a standard. --Masem (t) 03:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Huh? Doctor Who pre-dates Cheers by 19 years, so your "older programs" argument is completely backward. Why would Doctor Who, season 1 "make sense" but Cheers, season 1 "not make any sense"? What sense, to whom? This is so subjetive and odd that no, well, sense can be made of it as an argument. There doesn't appear to be anyone, anywhere for whom Cheers, season 1 does "not make any sense". It makes the perfect and obvious sense that it's about season 1 of Cheers, and given our disambiguation patterns, it makes much more sense than Cheers (season 1), which implies a type of thing called "season 1s" and a "Cheers" that happens to be one of those, just as Secretariat (horse) indicates an individual exemplar named "Secretariat" of a class of things called "horses". Your "doesn't make any sense" argument would seem to militate against even Cheers (season 1), anyway. And why shouldn't one pattern of the sort proposed here be "established as a standard", when WP:CONSISTENT policy clearly tells us to be consistent in our naming patterns, and we have WP:COMMADIS in the same policy placed higher than (i.e. preferable to) parenthetical disambiguation when the former is available. Just asserting that a standard shouldn't be established, without a rationale, isn't at all an argument against establishing a standard.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Cheers, season 1" is not a way that the show is referred to, because outside of a few instances of actors, the seasons of that show generally ran together. And for Doctor Who, it is more like Doctor Who (series 1) (not season!) that could benefit for being called "Doctor Who, series 1" since that itself is generally well encapsulated and referred to as that. Masem (t) 04:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  But Cheers, season 1 (punctuated however you like) is how that season of the show is referred to. We have an article on it, and it has sources. See also [2], including the first link where it is being official sold as season 1 of Cheers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Which is why my vote is "Case by Case", rather than trying to force one way or the other. Where it falls naturally to use commas, use them there; otherwise, where there is no major distinctions of seasons of a show, probably better to use paratheticals. Masem (t) 05:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  But there is no case where using a comma for this would be "unnatural"; it's just one of the several competing but common ways to write these things, and we should use one consistently instead of veer back and forth between conflicting styles for no reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with SMcCandlish, don't think this point about Cheers is particularly clear. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  There is also a Doctor Who (season 1). Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note: The 10 following WikiProjects and taskforces have been notified of this discussion: WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Anime and manga, the Arrowverse task force, WikiProject Disney, WikiProject Doctor Who, the Episode coverage task force, the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force, WikiProject Star Trek, WikiProject Star Wars, and WikiProject The Simpsons. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning support for "X season Y" without colon or comma, I could accept comma but I think its best without. Either way the parentheses need to go, they create a mess for Wikidata.★Trekker (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Could you explain the issue with Wikidata? Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Wikidata doesn't (generally) allow brackets or disambiguators in labels, which means a lot of the time for season items people have to come in and manually fix all season labels and add descriptions for them to be useful otherwise all of them end up looking identical without descriptions, if we had a format without brackets all that work could be done by bots instead.★Trekker (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support X season Y; I usually just edit anime articles, so apologies if this argument is too centered around that, but using One Piece as an example, due to there being two TV series of the same nationality (One Piece (1999 TV series) and One Piece (2023 TV series)) the year is used as disambiguation. However, based on WP:TVSEASON, which states If there are multiple shows of the same name, include the disambiguation, similar to the above for TV series in the season description, means the season pages like One Piece (season 1) should be titled "One Piece (1999 TV series season 1)", which I think looks awkward, whereas "One Piece (1999 TV series) season 1" I think looks more appealing, though perhaps this is veering too much into WP:ILIKEIT territory. Link20XX (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The season number is not generally part of the name, for example Doctor Who season 1 and Doctor Who season 2 are technically both just called Doctor Who. That is why it is appropriate to include the season number in disambig parentheses, just like if we were talking about two different series called Doctor Who. If there was consensus for "Doctor Who (season 1)" breaking the normal disambig rules then it should be changed to "Doctor Who season 1", not "Doctor Who, season 1". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I'll just repeat what I wrote three years ago: "The parenthetical disambiguation for season articles never made any sense to me. Grammatically, the parentheses in my view emphasize the series itself and make the season seem like an afterthought, whereas the article is actually about the season. Sure, 'it ain't broke,' but no one has pointed out a downside to improving this naming convention." -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll be the one: parentheses are much cleaner, as they clearly distinguish the season number from the show title. Removing parentheses would mean everything is jumbled together in a confusing manner, and readers may need to read an article title twice before catching on. I can foresee problems especially with shows with longer titles. And with any major change comes a massive headache. First there's the cleanup effort. This will likely be done using bots/AWB, but it is still a massive task that requires substantial planning — for example, what to do with unusual/tricky cases — and will cause significant disruption. By disruption I mean (1) everyone's watchlists will be inundated with page moves, (2) editors unaware of this non-RfC will be bewildered, and we all saw what happened with the Vector 2022 rollout, and (3) editors will need to be retrained. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Cleaner" is an opinion that I disagree with, but it also ignores my (and other editors') point that the article is about the season, not the show, so the subject should be emphasized. Parentheticals are usually used to disambiguate subjects with the same name– that's not the case here, since the seasons are the focal point– User:BD2412's example about George Washington is exactly right. The page moves point is not a big concern. Four years ago we changed every "U.S. TV series" and "UK TV series" to "American" and "British," respectively – the moves happened smoothly and no one's thinking about the logistics of that any longer. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Parentheticals are usually used to disambiguate subjects with the same name but not always. We have articles like Timeline of World War II (1939). This is a convention, not a rule. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support As the above mentions, this was brought up three years ago (started by myself, nonetheless), and I still support such a change. The format specifically, I have no issues with, whether it's a comma or no separation between show and season I agree with both, but we need to get rid of the parentheses. To paraphrase my quote above, The Flash (2014 TV series) is titled as such because The Flash is a 2014 TV series, and by following that line of thought, The Flash (season 1) would be titled as such because The Flash is a "season 1". If that were the case, the lead should state "The Flash is the first season of the American television series The Flash", but it is rather a subset of a wider project. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support I prefer no comma here, since "The Simpsons, season 8 episodes" is awkward compared to "The Simpsons season 8 episodes" and the current Category:The Simpsons (season 8) episodes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose – I understand the general principle, but I don't think the benefit of switching to commas is worth the work needed to make the changes. (I also personally find the commas awkward but I understand if people want to ignore that argument.) If we really wanted to make a change, we could go with "Season X (Show)" – this would be more in line with disambiguation norms and it would enable the pipe trick when people want to link to season articles, but that's a much different idea than what is being proposed here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I ran a quick search for "(season" and "(series" in all mainspace titles and got a slightly different count of the number of moves needed – 11,187 and 3,298, respectively. I did it quickly so it may not be a perfect search, just wanted to compare to the original count of 6,334. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  The leading proposal at this time is to have no punctuation at all, which I am fine with. That treats the article subject, e.g. "Blue Bloods season 8", as a thing in itself. As for the number of pages affected, I obtained that from the number of articles in the TV seasons category tree. When we made the decision to disambiguate the title New York, I personally made about 80,000 fixes within the span of a few weeks, but this would be done by a bot, so nearly automatic. BD2412 T 19:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  The no-comma option requires the same work, and just because a bot does it doesn't mean it isn't disruptive to some degree. And the no-comma option still feels a little awkward to me since I don't often see "Show season X" as a single phrase in writing ("Season X of Show" is more common in writing but that seems like a poor title – hence my personal suggestion, even if nobody else supports it). RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  By that measure, every edit made to Wikipedia is "disruptive to some degree". BD2412 T 18:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  I have to wholeheartedly agree with the no-comma option still feels a little awkward to me since I don't often see "Show season X" as a single phrase in writing. This no-punctuation idea is a case of WP editors trying to make up their own fake style out of nowhere, against independent reliable source usage, which is something that consensus has been against for a very long time. Sources are not consistent on one style (commas, colons, hyphens or dashes, brackets of various sorts), but they are consistent in hardly ever using the confusing "Show season X" style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding the Wikidata argument, we should not be using Wikidata to determine article titles. Wikidata isn't reader-facing. The world doesn't revolve around Wikidata; Wikidata should be the one that accommodates Wikipedia article titles. The primary concern that we should be focusing on is which of the following is easier on readers' eyes: The Suite Life of Zack & Cody (season 2) or The Suite Life of Zack & Cody season 2; Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 17) or Law & Order: Special Victims Unit season 17. Keep in mind that italics don't show on search results, autocomplete, categories, or Google Search. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  If that's the criterion you want, then I would still go for "The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, season 2" and "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, season 17", since it separates the title from the season, but is less visually disruptive than parentheses, and the comma-separated season won't be suppressed the way parenthetical everything is hidden by various tools, including Google previews and our own built-in hovercards.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  On what grounds, other than to accommodate Wikidata? There are no PAGs that govern how we name "subtopic" articles, nor is there a PAG that says parentheses may only be used for disambiguation. Accordingly, MOS:VAR tells us to defer to the status quo and keep doing what we have been doing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  I just told you on what grounds. Repeat: since it separates the title from the season, but is less visually disruptive than parentheses, and the comma-separated season won't be suppressed the way parenthetical everything is hidden by various tools, including Google previews and our own built-in hovercards. WP:COMMONSENSE exists for a reason. Not everthing has to come down to "Do you have a rule to thump?" Cf. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:WIKILAWYER. Any time someone is opposing something that clearly makes sense just because there isn't a rule that mandates it, they are making a mistake. And MOS:VAR is about in-article content; it has nothing to do with article titles. These season strings are effectively serving as a form of topical disambiguation (between other articles on seasons/series of the same show), and WP:AT policy specifies a preferential order of such formats: natural disambiguation (which doesn't really apply here; there is nothing "natural" about running the show title against the season designator, and this style is poorly attested in sources; see also note about NCPSPLITLIST below); comma-separated; parenthetical; and descriptive (i.e. a phrase made up by Wikipedians for a subject that doesn't really have a common name), in that order. Comma trumps parenthetical. On the other hand, WP:NCSPLITLIST guideline (and an argument can be made that these season articles are like unto a split list of episodes) suggests colon as preferable, and comma as an alternative. So, there is no "one true rule" to thump here, though it is important that both of these pages accept commas as the method. The first does not accept colons, and the latter accepts parenthetical only a third choice. Maybe more to the point, the "use no punctuation" option is specifically "deprecated as ambiguous, hard to read", with various unpunctuated examples shown (along with examples that are otherwise problematic, e.g. for being reundantly longwinded, which aren't relevant to this discussion).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  (SMcCandlish, duplicate signature removed.) You don't need "a rule to thump" to enact a change. But without invoking PAGs, this discussion is essentially a battle between ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT. That is never a good reason to delete an article, and that is certainly not a good reason to rename thousands of articles. Those !voting support are citing two contradictory arguments at once: one group claims that parentheses should only be used for disambiguation, and since (TV series) is not a form of disambiguation, we should use commas instead; the other group claims (TV series) is a form of disambiguation, but comma-separated disambiguation should be used instead because it is superior. Both arguments are flawed: for those saying parentheses can only be used for disambiguation, I have pointed out that no PAGs support this claim, and in any case, their argument can be extended to commas as well; for those saying comma-separated disambiguation is a superior form of disambiguation, it makes sense to use commas for subjects like place names and regnal titles, where such a construction is commonplace outside of Wikipedia, but no one uses commas for TV seasons, including sources. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Nah. The fact that mutiple arguments exist against something and are not entirely in synch with each other doesn't make them both invalid. It simply means people oppose your preference for mutiple reasons. And I haven't seen anyone in here ever say "parentheses should only be used for disambiguation", so that seems to be a straw man; rather, the argument is that it looks like (i.e., is by readers confusable with) disambiguation, since our main disambiguation technique is parenthetical (because "natural" and comma styles tend not to really exist for most topics), and for the kind of case here we have alternatives to use anyway. The other argument you don't like is that if one wants to interpret this is a form of disambiguation, then we should use comma style, since it is preferred when available over parenthetical, and it is available since some sources do use it, and it is not confusing in any way. These arguments really don't have anything to do with each other, but both of them are independent and severable reasonable arguments to avoid "Foo (season X)" style titles. "no one uses commas for TV seasons, including sources" isn't actually true; the style is rare in the entertainment press but so is parenthetical, which verges on non-existent. In trawling through Google News searches on various TV-show titles followed by the word "season", the vast majority confusingly use no puctuation or other separation at all, quite a few put the show name in quotation marks (which WP doesn't and never will), fewer use italics, but WP can't do that in a title, a few less use a pipe | symbol which can't work in a WP article title, and a few less again use a dash or hyphen which WP could do, but which I don't see anyone proposing (though using a dash would be sactioned by WP:NCSPLITLIST), and even fewer use a colon (which would be a poor choice here because some many show titles include their own internal colon, as in Star Trek: Discovery). Commas are even less common, and parentheses (round brackets) least common of all. So, at this point, I would support using an end dash first and a comma as second choice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  And now en dashes have entered the mix... We should not be using commas (or any unconventional method of disambiguation) unless many sources do so as well. If we were to use comma-separated disambiguation whenever possible, even when virtually no one else does, most of our articles would be comma-disambiguated rather than parenthetically. For example, job titles (e.g. Chris Evans (actor)) and locations (e.g. Glacier National Park (U.S.)) can easily be preceded by a comma rather than parentheses, but this is not the case. Since sources do not agree on which styling to use (meaning, there is no overwhelmingly common way to disambiguate), and very few use commas, the default should be parentheses. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  But why would we prefer parens when they are not more common (at least as uncommon a commas) in the source material than either colons or en dashes?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Because it is the standard on Wikipedia if natural and comma-separated disambiguation are virtually non-existent. To change this norm would require a complete overhaul of WP:NCDAB, and most parenthetically disambiguated articles would have to be moved. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I guess that's reasonable from a "this is disambigution" perspective, but there is denial throughout this thread that it is in fact disambiguation, rather than being a form of split list, for which both en dash and colon are permitted in the titles (in that order of preferences).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  An earlier comment of yours seemed to suggest that you were on the "this-is-disambiguation" camp, which is why I tailored my response to that argument. As I wrote several comments above, the two contradictory arguments are making this discussion confusing. If we were to look at things from a "not-disambiguation" perspective, then the argument "parentheses look like disambiguation, so we should use commas" makes no sense. Commas are literally one of the two other forms of disambiguation described at WP:NCDAB. "It looks nicer/cleaner/prettier/less visually disruptive" (whatever that means) is an ILIKEIT argument and not a compelling reason to move — again, I'll reiterate — thousands of articles and probably tens of thousands of incoming links. Again, we don't need a "rule to thump", but if it comes down to ILIKEIT vs. IDONTLIKEIT, then we would need a highly compelling reason that demonstrates substantial improvement to and benefit for readers. Those in favor of changing the naming convention have yet to provide evidence that the current convention has been actively harmful to readers, only that it causes behind-the-scenes problems off-wiki. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Confusing: just how it goes sometimes; if people aren't all conceptualizing this the same way, we can't make then do it, and have little choice but to juggle mutiple arguments. I think the "looks like disambiguation" points boils down to 'It looks like it means, in "Foo (season 1)", that "Foo" is a type of "season 1" and that "seasons 1" or "season 1s" are an encyclopedic category; meanwhile "Foo, season 1" more clearly implies a "season 1" subset of "Foo".' It's less likely to be mis-parsed than no punctuation at all, though either an en dash or a colon would serve the same purpose, with the former being better because so many shows already have an internal colon in their titles. A fair number of show titles have commas, too, but nearly none have dashes, so the dash really ought to be preferable (except to those who insist this is a form of disambiguation and not a form of split list, since dashes or colons aren't recognized for DAB purposes, though this is maybe really a trivial historical oversight and not a real principle based in anything – it's weird that DAB and LONGLIST neither mirror each other nor have mutually exclusive onventions, but instead just partially overlap). Arguments about implication and parseablily aren't just ILIKEIT, though they may not be compelling to everyone. If there's an additional argument about "behind-the-scenes problems off-wiki" maybe that also counts for something, but perhaps not much.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support a change from parentheticals, with preferences in the following order: "The Simpsons season 8" (no punctuation), "The Simpsons: season 8" (colon), "The Simpsons, season 8" (comma).
  Parentheticals are not in common usage by other sources and not consistent with the meaning on Wikipedia: One Day at a Time (2017 TV series) is a subject called One Day at a Time that is a 2017 TV series, whereas "The Simpsons (season 8)" isn't a subject called The Simpsons that is a season 8. — Bilorv (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support While I like the parentheses, that seem to be the arguement of many of the people in opposition. The seasons of a TV show are not separate entities they are part of the shows. The parenthases are used to disambiguate pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlifanofmrTennant (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 December 2023 (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.

Monarch TV series

Monarch (TV series) currently redirects to Monarch: Legacy of Monsters, an American series, while we also have Monarch (American TV series). Should the first link be a disambiguation page, and should the third link be moved to a better disambiguation? -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, the title of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters is not Monarch; it's a partial title match. Unless there is another notable TV series named Monarch (Monarch (disambiguation) doesn't show one), it looks like Monarch (American TV series) should move to Monarch (TV series), and in turn it should have a hatnote disambiguating from Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. The present mess of Monarch (TV series) redirecting to Monarch: Legacy of Monsters is obviously WP:RECENTISM and failure to follow WP:DAB on at least two counts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd have no issues with that, thanks for clarifying those details. Monarch (TV series) has no active mainspace links that would require updating, so if nobody else raises an issue with it, I'll move Monarch (American TV series) to Monarch (TV series) later and add the hatnote. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not that easy. While the full title Monarch: Legacy of Monsters is unambiguous, the series is often referred to without the subtitle. I would oppose a proposal to rename Monarch (American TV series) as Monarch (TV series). This is a question of primary topic for the incomplete disambiguation ' Monarch (TV series)' -- the musical drama is absolutely not. Whether the monster series is PT is another question. I'd say it is to soon to tell. older ≠ wiser 14:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

BTW, if neither of these series is primary topic for Monarch (TV series) -- that term should redirect to Monarch (disambiguation)#Film and television. older ≠ wiser 14:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Well baby steps... I redirected Monarch (TV series) to Monarch (disambiguation)#Film and television in this edit as Legacy of Monsters is clearly not primary. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Joeyconnick, why do you think it is clearly not primary? Monarch (American TV series) is a poorly reviewed, forgettable series cancelled after one season. Monarch (American TV series) is a well-received, relatively popular show. pageviews a orders of magnitude in difference. WikiNav shows the monster show as the top two destinations for those arriving at the disambiguation page (and I suspect the American show in third place may be due to curiosity or confusion about what this other American TV show called Monarch is). older ≠ wiser 20:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As above, WP:RECENTISM. Also, we (generally) don't do partial disambiguation, so the appropriate target is the disambiguation page since the series is very clear about its title and it's not simply "Monarch". —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It is also commonly called simply "Monarch" without the subtitle. And yes recentism is a thing, but when one is nearly negligible in comparison, what is the point? I'm not necessarily saying it is primary for "Monarch (TV series)", it just isn't such a clear case, and if it isn't primary for that, there is no way that the cancelled series is primary for either "Monarch (TV series)" or "Monarch (American TV series)". older ≠ wiser 08:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC: Should we use "(serial)" or "(TV serial)"?

Both disambiguators "(serial)" and "(TV serial)" are in titles for various articles, see a title search for "(TV serial)" and a title search for "(serial)" for reference. In the NCTV guideline's current state, the mentioned use is "(serial)", but most articles which are located at titles with "(serial)" instead of "(TV serial)" seem to be about film serials, and actually pertain to title conventions that are covered by WP:NCFILM.

So, in regards to TV serials, which disambiguator should be the standard? Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain to me the difference between a TV serial and a TV series? Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I believe "serial" is a UK-ism and "series" is an Americanism. Moreover, there are definitely some number of shows for which the "TV" serial/series must be distinguished from radio or film. BD2412 T 14:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I may be wrong about this. I know that in the UK, "series" is often used to mean what "season" is used for in the U.S. BD2412 T 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "series" in the UK often means "season" in the US. But that distinction isn't important to this question, which is about the word "serial". Toughpigs (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

If "serial" doesn't mean anything different in the UK, then we should be using "TV serial" wherever we are delineating a serial that is on TV. BD2412 T 19:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

In British English, the answer is that a ‘series’ is a series of programmes where each programme stands alone - for example a game show, wildlife documentary, or a drama where there’s a separate self-contained and completed story every episode, whereas a ‘serial’ is (usually a drama) where the storyline continues from one episode to another - i.e. the principal storyline arc runs across the entire season (US) or series (UK), such that watching a single episode would be like reading the middle chapter of a book. Like, for example, Poldark, or War and Peace. The distinction becomes blurred in series that have both a longer storyline and self-contained episodes, like Secret Army, or Blakes Seven; in my judgement they'd both be considered serials due to the longer storyline, but each episode wraps up a story and you could drop into the middle and have a fulfilling view, although you might not fully understand the context right away. All these comments apply to TV; I don’t believe the term ‘serial’ is really used in British English in a film context. MapReader (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what you have said. In South Africa a preview of an upcoming film shown before the main film is called a trailer. Serial is also understood to be a single story told in multiple episodes e.g. at 2000 every Tuesday evening All British produced shows use series and not season e.g. The Sarah Jane Adventures, Atlantis. All American produced TV series such as Supergirl, The Flash that are released in South Africa and the UK (DVD Region 2) use Season in their titles. In my view the distinction between Series and Season is important and should be kept. PhilipGray123 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that in practice we're using "(serial)" for film serials (Flash Gordon (serial), Congo Bill (serial)) and "(TV serial)" for television (Quatermass (TV serial), The Hound of the Baskervilles (TV serial)). I can't find any examples of a non-redirect page that currently uses "(serial)" for television. This may be an example of policy needing to catch up to practice. I'd suggest updating the policy to specify "(TV serial)" and fix any outliers, if there are any. Toughpigs (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You need to rephrase and put the question again, to allow for both American and British English terminology. MapReader (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The British/American question was based on an error. There's no difference in the British vs American definition of the word "serial". Toughpigs (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

From the above explanations (and I'm sure I'm in the minority but it's still worth stating the obvious), I don't really see any merit in continuing using "serial" or "TV serial". NCTV has very little variation in the types of disambiguation it has for standard television shows (there used to be much more). "TV series", "TV programme" or "miniseries" should be enough to handle any variation. Gonnym (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently, a search for "(TV serial)" shows that many of them are already redirects to "(TV series)". I think a change across the board from "TV serial" to "TV series" would make sense. Toughpigs (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

For articles tagged as written in British English, that wouldn’t be appropriate, as TV serial is what they are commonly called. MapReader (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a source for this? BD2412 T 20:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The definition is as set out in our own WP articles on TV serials and TV shows. There are plenty of other authoritative sources on the internet as to what the term means. Most of these imply that it is still pertinent in both US and UK English, and I can attest to the latter. It isn’t clear what the source is for suggesting that it’s no longer a relevant term in US English? MapReader (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Serial" also has a theatrical sense, and refers to a series of episodic shorts released over time that were put on before or after the main feature (their serial nature being used as an extra draw to keep people coming back to movie theaters on a regular basis); that's how The Lone Ranger and Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon got started. I'm not entirely certain what other uses "serial" might have in a filmic context, especially with regard to television.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"TV series" should be used over "serial" or "TV serial" for programmes broadcast on television. "Serial" is particularly undesirable as it makes the medium unclear (the disambiguator is likely needed because there's been a serial of the same name in a different medium). I would understand and expect any of these terms to be used in the UK to describe, for instance, a self-contained story told across three hour-long episodes: "miniseries", "series", "serial", "programme". A TV serial is a type of TV series. If "serial" isn't commonly used outside of British English then "series" is preferable under MOS:COMMONALITY. — Bilorv (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Neither. Usage should be uniform across Wikipedia, using "(TV series)" and "(miniseries)" for the two types of shows, regardless of the country of origin of the show. Softlavender (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Miniseries disambiguation

This guideline states that the correct disambiguation for miniseries is "Title (miniseries)" rather than "Title (TV series)". I have started a move discussion at Talk:Obi-Wan Kenobi (TV series)#Requested move 18 April 2024 to get that article moved to the correct disambiguation. Posting here in case any involved in the guideline wants to chip in. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Naming awards lists

I've noticed several lists of awards by TV shows recently that use the "List of accolades received by X" naming format. While this is common for other works such as films, most examples for TV shows use "List of awards and nominations received by X", as shown at Category:Lists of awards by television series. I think it would be useful to add a note to WP:NCTV clarifying if a certain format is preferred. Personally, I think "awards and nominations" should be the preferred format given that (a) "accolades" could include end-of-year lists or other recognitions that aren't generally included, and (b) "awards and nominations" is clearly the common option currently. But I would prefer consistency either way over the mismatched titles we currently have. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The Last of Us characters articles

At the disambiguation page List of The Last of Us characters, there are three articles listed: Characters of The Last of Us, Characters of The Last of Us Part II, and Characters of The Last of Us (TV series). The last article comes under NCTV, and is therefore incorrectly named; per #List articles, it should be at List of The Last of Us (TV series) characters (which it was originally at, before being moved last month). Should that article be restored to a "List of" title? And if so, should the other two game character articles also be moved? -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a character list being at "Characters of X", if the article is more than just a simple list approach (eg as compared to List of Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) characters where there is zero info about character creation or reception as a whole. (That said, I think there's a lot of excess weight that could be trimmed out and moved to children articles on the individual characters in both VG and TV show such that a single list should cover it all) --Masem (t) 04:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Characters of The Last of Us (TV series) looks like every average list of characters article. Gonnym (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Top of the Pops (4th October 1973)

Currently Top of the Pops (4th October 1973) is titled unlike every other episode article with the title and disambiguation being flipped. Any ideas how to better rename this? Gonnym (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I was originally going to say rename it to Episode 500 (Top of the Pops), using disambiguation of the series, but then you could also just rename it to Episode 500 without disambiguation, since the article doesn't exist. The latter title would be supported by similar examples such as Episode 400 of Neighbours, Episode 1094 of Casualty, or Episode 4466 of Eastenders. -- Alex_21 _TALK 14:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I found two other episode articles for the series, so I'll go with your suggestion. I'll probably rename it with the dab so all three are consistent, but if anyone feels differently they are welcomed to rename it without. Gonnym (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)