Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Naming conventions

< Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style | Television | August 2016 updates
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Favre1fan93
Users agreed with the overall changes presented in the second proposal by Favre1fan93, with the intent that specific examples and the wording can be adjusted and finessed if need be. See #New, updated text for the resulting changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

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.

Current text

edit
Main page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)
  • If a non-television article does not already exist with the name of the television series, episode title, or character name for which you are trying to create an article, then simply use the name of the subject as the article title (e.g. Carnivàle, Pauline Fowler or Cape Feare).
  • If a non-television article already exists with the name of the television series for which you are trying to create an article, disambiguate and use (TV series) in the title: Series Title (TV series) (e.g. Firefly (TV series)).
  • If a television article already exists with the name of the series for which you are trying to create an article, use (YEAR TV series) in the title: Series Title (YEAR TV series) (e.g. The Incredible Hulk (1982 TV series) and The Incredible Hulk (1996 TV series)).
  • If you are creating an individual character or episode article, and that name is already in use by another article, then the title of the article should contain the name of the character or episode followed by "(SERIES NAME)" (e.g. Through the Looking Glass (Lost) or Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)).

New, updated text

edit
Main page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)

If an article does not already exist with the name of the television series, episode title, or character name for which you are trying to create an article, then simply use the name of the subject as the article title (e.g. Carnivàle, Pauline Fowler or Cape Feare).

If an article already exists with the name of a television series that you are trying to create, use one of the following disambiguators as necessary:

Article titles for television series are properly italicized as long as {{Infobox television}} is used in the article. If not, {{italic title}} or {{DISPLAYTITLE}} may be used. The former has the advantage of continuing to work in case the disambiguation suffix is changed or removed from the article's title.

If an article already exists with the name of an episode title or character, then the title of the article should contain the name of the episode or character followed by (SERIES NAME): Episode/Character name (SERIES NAME) (e.g. "Through the Looking Glass" (Lost) or Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). In order for an article with this disambiguation to properly stylize, you must use the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template.

Disambiguation for List of episodes or list of characters articles may or may not need to be used, depending on if other list articles exist. (e.g. NCIS: New Orleans and List of NCIS: New Orleans episodes; The Flash (2014 TV series) and List of The Flash episodes; Mistresses (U.S. TV series) and List of Mistresses (U.S. TV series) episodes and Mistresses (UK TV series) and List of Mistresses (UK TV series) episodes). Once again, in order for an article with this disambiguation to properly stylize, you must use the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template.

Additional examples and instances can be seen at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television).

Proposed changes

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Proposed changes by Favre1fan93

In the third bullet point, add other disambiguators such as network or country. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Alternative proposal by SMcCandlish

In the third bullet point, mention that sometimes we use further disambiguations, such as by network or country, when a date disambiguation is insufficient, and refer editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Additional disambiguation for details.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Proposed changes by Favre1fan93 #2
If an article does not already exist with the name of the television series, episode title, or character name for which you are trying to create an article, then simply use the name of the subject as the article title (e.g. Carnivàle, Pauline Fowler or Cape Feare).

If an article already exists with the name of a television series that you are trying to create, use one of the following disambiguators as necessary:

Article titles for television series are properly italicized as long as {{Infobox television}} is used in the article. If not, {{italic title}} or {{DISPLAYTITLE}} may be used. The former has the advantage of continuing to work in case the disambiguation suffix is changed or removed from the article's title.

If an article already exists with the name of an episode title or character, then the title of the article should contain the name of the episode or character followed by (SERIES NAME): Episode/Character name (SERIES NAME) (e.g. "Through the Looking Glass" (Lost) or Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). In order for an article with this disambiguation to properly stylize, you must use the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template.

Disambiguation for List of episodes or list of characters articles may or may not need to be used, depending on if other list articles exist. (e.g. NCIS: New Orleans and List of NCIS: New Orleans episodes; The Flash (2014 TV series) and List of The Flash episodes; Mistresses (U.S. TV series) and List of Mistresses (U.S. TV series) episodes and Mistresses (UK TV series) and List of Mistresses (UK TV series) episodes). Once again, in order for an article with this disambiguation to properly stylize, you must use the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template.

Additional examples and instances can be seen at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television).

Alternative proposal by nyuszika7h
[Previous parts unchanged.]

In order for an article with this disambiguation to properly stylize, you must use the {{italic title}} template, which will automatically italicize just the series name without the disambiguation suffix.

For articles such as episode lists, either {{italic title|string=Show Name}} or {{DISPLAYTITLE:List of ''Show Name'' episodes}} may be used. The former has the advantage of continuing to work in case the article is renamed while the show's name still remains intact in the title.

Previous discussions

edit

Nothing specifically on the MOS:TV talk for what appears there. Though all discussions pertaining to the info at WP:NCTV can be found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television).

Discussion

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago44 comments7 people in discussion
  • I think this section of the MOS is okay, given the Naming conventions article exists. Per my proposals above, the only things I could think of adding was more disambiguators for readers to see on this page, before going to the NC article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • The current text in the guideline seems entirely adequate to me (other than maybe the "additional disambiguation" cross-reference proposed above). It is consistent with WP:Article titles policy, the WP:Disambiguation guideline, the other Category:Wikipedia naming conventions guidelines, the WP:Manual of Style guidelines, and the actual WP:Naming conventions (television) guideline this section summarizes the key points of. I'm not seeing a lack or gap that needs to be covered here. MOS:TV is a Manual of Style guideline, not a naming conventions guideline; to the extent it says anything at all about article titles, it should (as it presently does) simply summarize, as a matter of convenience, the most important current WP:AT/WP:DAB-based rules that apply to all topics, as they apply to this one, and not introduce anything new; doing so would be out-of-scope for an MoS page, would be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problem, and will conflict with the purpose of WP:NCTV.

    As a related side note, consensus was reached several years go to split off WP:Naming conventions (comics) from WP:Manual of Style/Comics, precisely on the grounds that naming conventions that are not just a convenience summary, but actually introduce new rules, have no business being in an MoS page. For some reason, that was begun but not completed, and too much non-summary NC material remains in that MoS page, with a merge tag on it since 2014. That split-and-merge needs to be completed; it has proven detrimental, many times, for WP guidelines to "advice-fork" like this, since it inevitably leads to mutually contradictory rules arising on different pages. I would suggest completing that cleanup before doing anything like developing more detailed TV-related naming convention rules.

    Be consistent. If a TV naming convention guideline is developed any further than what we already have, make it as consistent as possible with the ones for comics, novels, and other fictional works. Indeed, the current WP:NCTV page should be checked for consistency with the similar naming conventions for other kinds of fiction and nonfiction.

    Same goes for any style rules (the actual raison d'etre of MOS:TV). It's important for both editors and readers that TV article style not be surprisingly divergent from that used in articles on other media, especially because the same article will often cover a franchise or character in multiple media (unless and until the works in in the franchise, or featuring the character, are sufficiently notable to attract separate article development). The #1 overriding concern of the MoS is that consistency within an article is more important than consistency between articles.
     — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • I agree that this section is pretty good (though is there a reason why it is in list form and not standard prose?). I also think it wouldn't hurt to mention the other potential disambiguation, possibly with a link to somewhere else with more information on the topic as has been proposed. Disambiguation has been a bit of an issue at several articles recently, so making this small adjustment/clarification seems appropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Agree with the proposed changes above from Favre1fan93 and SMcCandlish – just make sure that the "country" examples are consistent with WP:NCTVUS and WP:NCTVUK. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Hi all. So I just wrote up a second proposal to discuss. I took what we all mentioned and tried to incorporate it. I removed the bullets as Adamstom.97 questioned, and reformatted them. I've included the additional disambiguators beyond YEAR as I proposed along with SMcCandlish (though hopefully not too much more than I think they wanted). And I did include the COUNTRY examples consistent with what IJBall wanted. I did add some other things that I felt important (such as the need for DISPLAYTITLE when disambiguating an episode or character page).

    However, for all I just pinged/other who may join, is there ever a need for the NETWORK disambiguation? Trying to find examples of it, based on the wording I pulled from WP:NCTV, it has to be used when a show with the same title airs in the same region around the same time. I found The Nurses (CBS TV series) and The Nurses (ABC TV series), with the ABC version a continuation of the CBS version, though they aired one after another, so the YEAR disambig should maybe be used? Also, for examples, there is Stingray (TV series) and Stingray (NBC TV series), when the COUNTRY disambig would be more appropriate. So I really don't see the need for this one, based on the others we have, unless you had two shows with the same title that started airing on different networks in the exact same year. If others agree with this, I think that example should not be used here, but changed as necessary over at WP:NCTV. Also, with the Stingray example (and others), would WP:PRIMARYTOPIC apply at all? Maybe SMcCandlish could provide insight if so? Thanks all! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

    • I would recommend one more (non-U.S./non-UK) "country" example – e.g. to show something like "XXXX (Canadian TV series)" or "XXXX (Indian TV series)" or something... As to your other question – I'll have to think of examples U.S. TV series with the same title that aired on different networks, and check those (there won't be many). In general, it's probably safer to use the "premiere year" to disambiguate in those cases over using the TV network – the need for disambiguating the latter way should be very rare indeed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
      • @IJBall: Only hesitation regarding more COUNTRY ones is this version at the MOS is only supposed to be the overview, with more examples at NCTV. It would probably be better for NCTV to have those examples there, than in this blurb. But if others feel the need for them, I'd support it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
        • It's a simple matter to give a "season" and "series" examples back-to-back if necessary. There's not really a lot of ENGVAR at stake here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
          • Actually there is – many editors don't understand the use of "U.S." (with periods) vs. "UK" (without periods), which is why it's important to show examples of those. The third example is really to show that "U.S." and "UK" are unique and every other article gets a disamb. like "Canadian" or "Indian"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
            • Yeah, actually MOS:US was updated at some point (which is strange as I don't recall seeing a discussion about it) to allow "US" as well, but then it also says "U.S." is the more common usage in the United States, so American shows still get that ENGVAR and therefore the dotted version. And yeah, I think it's a good idea to include at least one other example. That reminds me, the other day I moved an article and was looking for the demonym to use for Hong Kong – a quick search seemed to suggest "(Hong Kong TV series)" is usually used. That should probably be clarified, maybe that should go in WP:NCTV. nyuszika7h (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • @Nyuszika7h: I did not include in my proposal about italictitles, since the article should be using the main television infobox, which will handle that appropriately. I like the second bit though. I think we should have a little prose about how to name LoEs and LoCs, especially since the disambiguators for main series articles may or may not have to be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I just noticed something – MOS:TV § Naming conventions, which is supposed to be a summary if I understood correctly above, mentions how to disambiguate character articles, but WP:NCTV makes no mention of that. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • @Favre1fan93: The more I think about it, the more I think that the "(NETWORK TV series)" entry/example for disambiguating articles should just be dropped from this section of MOSTV – the instances where disambiguating by TV network would be necessary (basically, it would only be in those cases where there were two TV series that had the same title, and which aired/were produced in the same country, and which premiered in the same year(!!)), is vanishingly small. So I think we should just drop disambiguating by TV network from MOSTV (and from WP:NCTV/WP:NCTVUS too...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
    • That was my thinking too. As I said, when I was trying to think of examples, and how it was worded at WP:NCTV, I thought just like you, that the only time it would be needed, would be if the two series had the same title, from the same country in the same year. Which is a highly unlikely probability. The YEAR or COUNTRY disambiguation can be used instead. I will remove it from my proposal above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm sorry I'm late to this. For some reason I didn't have the page watchlisted. I'm ok with all the changes, but have a question about the whole "network" addition though. Can someone provide me an example of when you would do that? I can't imagine a time when you would have a show with the same name, in the same country, in the same year, but on two different stations. Usually, networks just change the name of the show so as not to confuse viewers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Is the "TV series" part necessary in episode list disambiguations? I've also seen just "List of Show Name (U.S.) episodes" being used, and created such an article recently (I don't remember the exact name). nyuszika7h (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • This discussion has been open for two weeks and I think we covered all points that needed to be covered. Any outstanding objections from anyone? I'm going to start a straw poll below so we can hopefully close this section and move on to the next one in MOSTV! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I assume (TV program) can still be used in place of (TV series) where appropriate, for non-episodic television programs, in particular current affairs and news programming (such as Around the World (TV program), Outnumbered (TV program), Media Watch (TV program)). -- Whats new?(talk) 00:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
    • My $0.02 is that I'm not sure that should be OK for U.S. TV shows – the use of the world "program" has basically become anachronistic in regards to U.S. TV terminology (i.e. it's just not used as a term much at all anymore). Now, this isn't a hill I'm willing to die on. But I think, in general, we should avoid using the word "program" to disambiguate U.S. TV shows, so I'd rather that be left out of MOS:TV/WP:NCTVUS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
      • I don't think it is something to list in the MOSTV section about naming conventions, though the example(s) can still be included at WP:NCTV. The updated wording for MOSTV includes at the end, if you see, the text "Additional examples and instances can be seen at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)." to account for this, plus any other "oddball" examples that are not necessarily the "general info" needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
        • That's fine, it just hadn't been mentioned outright so thought I'd bring it up. It may not be a word used in the U.S., but arguably it is in other countries, and of course Wikipedia is not U.S. centric. Just like UK articles would use the spelling "programme". -- Whats new?(talk) 04:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Straw poll

edit
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.

Re-merge talk pages

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There is no reason to bury this discussion four levels deep in page structures. This discussion should be merged back to the main MOS:TV talk page, since it is about changes to that page, and not having it there will not only make the discussion hard to find (which can lead to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problems) it will interfere with normal archival.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Consensus when gauging interest in users to have these discussions was to create a subspace as this to have the discussions, since we are going to be covering each section of the MOSTV and the discussion can/will get lengthy. Additionally, for archiving purposes, all of the discussions will be housed in one location rather than potentially 2-3 different archive pages of the normal talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
There is no burying going on here. Anybody who watches the MOS:TV talk page, or who would stumble across this discussion there, will still manage to get here because of the notices linking here. The only difference is that we won't be adding this massive discussion to the normal talk page and can keep all of this process together as one thing. It is pretty standard behaviour to create a dedicated subspace when undertaking something like this. Anyway, this has already been discussed elsewhere, and the general consensus was that your concerns were unfounded. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television/August_2016_updates/Naming_conventions&oldid=739164371"