Talk:Happy Together (American TV series)

Requested move 3 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: consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

---

• Happy Together (2018 TV series) → Happy Together (U.S. TV series)
• Happy Together (2006 TV series) → Happy Together (Russian TV series)
• Happy Together (1999 TV series) → Happy Together (South Korean TV series)
• Happy Together (2001 TV series) → Happy Together (talk show)

– Following on from several recent RM precedents (e.g. Eve (U.S. TV series), Street Legal (Canadian TV series), Bodyguard (UK TV series), Committed (Canadian TV series), and possibly Beyond (2017 TV series), etc.), I propose moving the following articles to "by country" disambiguation under WP:NCTV, as being the more WP:RECOGNIZABLE way for our readers to find these articles. Note also that the last of these, Happy Together (2001 TV series), is currently incorrectly disambiguated under WP:NCTV – that article's lede and infobox categorize it as a "talk show" not a "TV series", and so it should be disambiguated with "talk show" under WP:NCTV (note: I have no prejudice against moving this one to Happy Together (South Korean talk show) instead, though most RM consensus deem this scenario to be "unnecessary disambiguation" from the others, with Happy Together (talk show) being sufficient...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support: It makes more sense to disambiguate by country as it is easier for readers. — Lbtocth^talk 17:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Never was a fan of the including the year in an article title when something like this is more suitable. I'd understand if there were more than one Happy Together scripted series, but there's not. Esuka (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom, previous RM consensus and editors above me. For television programs, country is in most cases the most recognizable feature. --Gonnym (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1st/2nd/4th, but move 3rd to Happy Together (1999 South Korean TV series) - To someone unfamiliar with the specifics of our naming conventions, "(South Korean TV series)" could easily apply to both the drama series and the talk show, so its WP:INCDAB. I absolutely reject the proposer's tactic of listing several other recent RMs because those are irrelevant - both by-year and by-country are acceptable disambiguation methods in NCTV, and any particular set of articles needs to be weighed on their own merits and circumstances. -- Netoholic @ 22:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Your #3 is unnecessary "double disambiguation" – there is only one "1999 TV series" with this title, and only one "South Korean TV series" (as a "talk show" is not a "TV series"), so "double disambiguation" is wholly unnecessary. Any minor remaining confusion can easily be solved with hatnotes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    • "talk show" is not a "TV series" - this is something which even some editors have disagreed with (note that it is currently already titled as a "TV series"), and certainly a distinction which many readers (especially non-native speakers) might not understand. -- Netoholic @ 03:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
      • This is why we have hatnotes – your "double disambiguation solution" is actually worse for readers than the hatnote solution. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Good titles are how we avoid extensive hatnotes on every ambiguous article. -- Netoholic @ 07:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Yeah, this is the problem of some editors in RM discussions – they look for "perfect titles", without the use of hatnotes, when the reverse is often preferable. ("Excessive use of hatnotes" is truly in the eye of the beholder.) And there's nothing "good" about "doubly disambiguated" titles – they actually make searching for, and finding, the articles in question harder, not easier. There's a reason we avoid unnecessary disambiguation on Wikipedia, and nearly all the proposed "doubly disambiguated" titles under NCTV I've ever seen are examples of unnecessary disambiguation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support all = much more reader friendly -- Whats new?^(talk) 11:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support All per reasons above. JE98 (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support all as the simplest, most effective disambiguation. Miniapolis 19:53, 5 January 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.