Talk:Animal Planet (Australia and New Zealand)

Requested move 6 January 2019

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus with NPASR. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

---

• Animal Planet (Australia and New Zealand) → Animal Planet (Australian and New Zealand TV channel)
• Animal Planet (Canada) → Animal Planet (Canadian TV channel)
• Animal Planet (India) → Animal Planet (Indian TV channel)
• Animal Planet (Southeast Asia) → Animal Planet (Southeast Asian TV channel)

– Another proposal to move some cable TV channel articles to the correct "by country" disambiguation, as per WP:NCBC (and WP:NCTV). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.   samee  converse  18:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom and WP:NCBC. --Gonnym (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose — personally, I find the "TV channel" portion unnecessary disambiguation. For conciseness, the country is sufficent, given there's no other Australian, Canadian, Indian or Asian article named "Animal Planet" other than a TV channel to distinguish from, nor is there likely to be -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For the record, this is fully contrary to the relevant naming guideline, WP:NCBC, and basically is admittedly a WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote (as per comments here). And, FTR, WP:CONCISE is not more important than WP:PRECISE, and the current disasmbiguation is not WP:PRECISE enough – you are assuming that every person searching for these terms "knows" that "Animal Planet" is a TV network: while plenty will, some will not, and the precise disambiguation proposed as per NCBC aids those readers in finding exactly what they are looking for. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • By that logic, every article about a television channel should have "TV channel" appended to it. There's no shortage of articles distinguished solely by country: Victoria (Australia) isn't titled Victoria (Australian state), nor Liberal Democrats (UK) as Liberal Democrats (UK political party), nor A&W (Canada) as A&W (Canadian restaurant), nor Four corners (Canada) as Four corners (Canadian geographical feature), nor Thanksgiving (United States) as Thanksgiving (United States national holiday), nor any of the articles at Ministry of Defence distinguished by Ministry of Defence (COUNTRY government department), etc. It is, in my view, unnecessary disambiguation when the country will do. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
      • If you don't believe that something like Discovery (Canada) is fully vague and not WP:PRECISE (whereas Discovery (Canadian TV channel) is not vague and is WP:PRECISE), I don't know what else to tell you. I think at this point, it's incumbent on you to hold an RfC in WP:NCBC – I'll be opposing this part of your proposal, but I may be more sympathetic to the other part (e.g. Discovery Channel (India) over Discovery Channel (Indian TV channel)). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I also agree, that if you consistently oppose the entire WP:NCBC guideline then you should propose a change to it, as opposing on a page-by-page basis is trying to create a WP:LOCALCON which disregards the guideline. --Gonnym (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Whats new?, word for word. Thanks for saving me all that typing. Plus, I disagree with the interpretation of PRECISE implied above. PRECISE requires a title "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article", but that it be "no more precise than that". The current titles already unambiguously define their respective topics, and have done so for years. So WP:TITLECHANGES applies here - there is no good reason to move this title. I also disagree that WP:NCBC is being ignored per WP:IDONTLIKEIT; it's being ignored per WP:IAR, to adhere to WP:CRITERIA better. But yes, NCBC should be fixed, the sooner the better. --В²C ☎ 23:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No they don't – they only ID them if you know "Animal Planet" is a TV channel. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who don't know that, so the current titles do not "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. The current titles are perfectly adequate and recognisable, there is no need to make them longer.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no good reason to ignore a guideline in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

    Yes there is, because the proposed change will do nothing at all to help readers. Article titles should be selected with readers in mind, to describe the topic as best as they can according to the WP:AT policy, including concision.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking about readers – those that don't know that "Animal Planet" is a TV channel (of which there are plenty). Which is why the guideline is currently written the way it is. Again, as per Gonnym above, if people don't like the guideline, then propose an RfC to change it. Until the happens, WP:NCBC should be followed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

But that is not the purpose of the disambiguator. If there were only one show of this name, the Australian one for example, we wouldn't have a disambiguator at all, whether people know it's a TV show or not. The reason for the term in parentheses is for those readers who already know about the Australian show (but maybe not the Canadian one), come here looking for it, and have a need to choose their show over the others. For them, it is the Australia that matters, not the TV series bit, which all of them have in common. It sounds like NCTV does need to change because it is asking us to name articles in ways which are contrary to policy and established disambiguation practice, but that is not a prerequisite for us to maintain this current title, given that WP:AT favours it.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Already concise and not confusing. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see any reason to muddy the waters by deviating from the guideline here. Concision is more of a factor in the actual title than in the disambiguator. It could be argued that this is overdisambiguation, but in the categories involved, the convention is to avoid titles like Animal Planet (Canada) because Animal Planet is not a Canada. Dekimasuよ! 18:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

---

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2018 Animal Planet logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2018 Animal Planet logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)