Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:13, 21 January 2007

• ]

Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive

Episodes with the same name in revived series

In cleaning up the Outer Limits episodes, I came across a small curiosity. Several episodes of the original 1963–1965 Outer Limits were remade in the 1995–2002 series: specifically, I, Robot (1964 The Outer Limits) (remade in 1995), Nightmare (1963 The Outer Limits) (remade in 1998)), and The Human Factor (1963 The Outer Limits) (remade in 2002, but doesn't yet have a page). I renamed those pages on the pattern of the only other similar case of which I was aware, The Hand of God (1978 Battlestar Galactica) and The Hand of God (2004 Battlestar Galactica). However, the years used in that case are the years in which the respective Battlestar Galactica series debuted, not when the specific episodes aired (the original "Hand of God" aired in 1979, and the recent one aired in 2005). I thought that the year of actual broadcast made more sense for the Outer Limits episodes, but the disambiguation still seems awkward to me, so I thought I'd raise it here. What do we think is the best way to handle cases like this? (I don't know if there are any others, but there might be, perhaps in animated series which have had multiple incarnations, like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Batman.)

The question is connected with the matter of how best to distinguish television series with the same name. I've never been particularly happy with the use of "initial year" as the disambiguator for an ongoing series or one that ran for several years, but there are cases in which it seems like the least bad option (such as the current Robin Hood series, which can be found at Robin Hood (2006 TV series)). Does anyone have any bright ideas about disambiguating series with the same name, or the specific odd case of episodes with the same name in series of the same name? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Best tp be consistent, if you'll forgive the further abuse of that term. I would recommend using a comma, though. As in The Hand of God (Battlestar Galatica, 2004). Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 08:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Convention at the moment does seem to be the use of the debut year for differentiation, and I admit it looks better than the other options, such as using the terms "Original" and "Re-imagined" (both of which are in and of themselves likely to be subject to controversy). The only other possibility would be putting the range of years each series ran, which would look even worse aesthetically and still only give the series, rather than year aired. I wouldn't be adverse to Ace's suggestion, above, though, putting the year second rather than first. --BlueSquadronRaven 08:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What about just The Hand of God (2004 episode)? Personally I like the least amount of disambiguation - in cases where (Battlestar Galactica) doesn't cut it, using the year would. Sure, some of the episodes would use a different disambiguation technique than others but who cares? Back to the original months-old debate, disambiguation is the key, not title aesthetics. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the way it is done with movies (see e.g. Bedazzled) so it seems it would be the most consistent with standard Misplaced Pages style. -- Chuq 12:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dab vs. non-dab

I'm thinking of splicing the article in disambiguation NC vs. article, cat, template title NC The index would then become something like this:

1. Terms and Abbreviations: TV vs. television, season vs. series, program vs. programme vs. show vs series
2. Italics when using a Program name within articles, and quotes for an episode name within articles.
3. Common names for articles: List of, Characters of, Season 1 of etc
4. Common names for categories and templates
5. Dab: mostly current content of the page

I would also like to highlight the "Only dab when necessary"-part by making it bold. Are there any people who think these suggestions are a bad idea ? -- TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We've come to find "necessary" a bit subjective. Try, "don't disambiguate when there is no ambiguity" or "don't disambiguate for aesthetic purposes." Alternately, you could spell it out with, "Don't disambiguate when there is no ambiguity; don't disambiguate for aesthetic purposes. If the name of a series, episode or character is the only known use of that word/phrase/term/title or collection of words, do not disambiguate. See Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation for more information." I fear that this point can never be driving home enough. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We may want to make sure that the reasonings behind these guidelines are spelled out. I'd like to avoid arguments about changing the guideline from people who don't understand the guideline, such as "It's just a guideline and I think it looks better this way". Jay32183 21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure, because the existing guidelines all seem to make sense to me. But I'm sure some one will get confused sometime and complain. The only place in the existing guidelines I could see that confusion arising is the "originating country" for "program vs programme". Some people may interpret that as filming location rather than country of production or country of initial broadcast. I guess for anything else we'll actually have to wait for some one to complain. Jay32183 22:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

24 (season 3)

I was looking at the main article and noticed this particular example... Now (season 3) implies a dab within wikipedia article naming usually. However, this isn't really a disambiguation issue is? Shouldn't the article be called Season 3 of 24 or something like that? what do you guys think ? TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"season 3 of 24" sounds a bit like your talking about the 3rd season out of 24 seasons. --`/aksha 01:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is semantics, and borderline unimportant. I can suggest "24's third season" or "24 season 3", but I really don't see the point. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In this specific case indeed a slightly different wording of the articlename may be appropriate, but there are more (season #) articles beyond this specific example :D TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Smallville (Season 2) as another example. Smallville season 2 just looks weird for some reason. – Þ  05:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "24 3rd season" / "Smallville 2nd season" ? -- Ned Scott 05:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it matters much, and I don't think it's that important for shows to be consistent with each other in this way. I'm fine with how it is now, with parenthesis. The only thing I really care about is that the show title comes first (as opposed to "season 3 of 24"). If it reads funny without parenthesis, what about other punctuation like "24: Season 3" or "24 - Season 3"? --Milo H Minderbinder 14:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

24 (season 3) looks backwards to me. We aren't talking about the season 3 kind of 24, we're talking about the 24 kind of season 3. If we keep using parentheses I think it should be Season 3 (24). The other suggestions for are good too, except the one that was already pointed out. Jay32183 17:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Each season the name of the series is the same: 24. I suggest 24 - Season 1, 24 - Season 2, etc. or 24 - Day 1, 24 - Day 2, ... --Serge 21:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I like 24: Season 3 or 24, Season 3 most I think. Note that the latter is citation style. Much like "The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Second Edition" when you reference a book. It would be the most official style i guess. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 05:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Little Rascals (TV series) --> The Little Rascals (animated TV series)_The_Little_Rascals_(animated_TV_series)-2007-01-16T05:31:00.000Z">

When this naming convention was first set in place, this article was moved to The Little Rascals (animated TV series). Psychonaut3000 (talk · contribs) saw fit (twice) to move to article to The Little Rascals (TV series), a confusing title considering people would very likely wonder why the article isn't about the live-action Little Rascals series (that series is properly covered at Our Gang). I propose to move the article back to The Little Rascals (animated TV series) for the sake of directness. PS: I read the blurb above about not posting move requests here, but if I posted this on the article's talk page, it would go very much unnoticed. --FuriousFreddy 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)_The_Little_Rascals_(animated_TV_series)"> _The_Little_Rascals_(animated_TV_series)">

We do the same thing at WP:ANIME with many shows, where they are "Show Title (anime)" rather than "Show Title (TV series)" to help avoid the confusion between live-action versions (which are increasing for anime). I think it's about time this page reflect that type of logical exception for animated shows. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me in this sort of case. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Two episodes with the same title

What do I do if there are two shows that have the same episode title? Both Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003) and Yu-Gi-Oh! GX have episodes titled "The Darkness Within". The TMNT one was made first, but do I put (TMNT 2003 episode) on the side of it? "The Darkness Within" will redirect there still... Matty-chan 12:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Both those episodes already have articles, The Darkness Within and The Darkness Within (Yu-Gi-Oh! GX) so you don't need to do anything. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, unless there's an argument I'm unaware of saying that the TMNT episode is the primary meaning of "The Darkness Within", I'd say that the TMNT episode should be moved to The Darkness Within (TMNT 2003 episode) and The Darkness Within should become a disambiguation page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think there's a need for that. I'd always thought disambiguation was only used when there was more than 3 items. If there's only two items, then don't we just use disambiguation links at the top of the article (the "this article is about...for the...see...etc line)? --`/aksha 10:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree. In the current setup, 50 percent of the people that type "The Darkness Within" in the search box will go immediately where they want. The other 50% will need to make one click to get where they want. With a two-item dab page, everyone will have to click once after the search. I always prefer dablinks over dab pages by default, esp. with only two items in question. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just made The Darkness Within (TMNT 2003 episode) a redirect to The Darkness Within, as suggested by our guideline. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has spoken...

...and the arbitration case relating to this convention has closed. The Committee has found that a consensus was reached to disambiguate episode titles according to the general principles at Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation (that is, not to place suffixes indicating the series after episode titles, unless there is another article that would share the name). The Committee has also ordered that administrators participating in discussion should close completed policy discussions, so accordingly I am announcing that the discussion of the episode titling guideline is closed. As the Committee noted, the discussion following the poll held in November reached a consensus; the guideline page already reflects the decision reached. Details of the discussion can be found in the archives of this page, beginning here and continuing here, here, here and here (whew!). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

An official declaration for what most of knew two months ago. How unfortunate. Thanks Josiah. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness! I have a nice bottle of cider I'm going to drink in celebration now.--BlueSquadronRaven 20:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's finally over. Glorious. To that end, I think you all will be seeing less of me here. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto here. I was even thinking of finally taking this thing of my watchlist. But it's been floating at the top of my watchlist for so long i think i'd miss seeing it there. =P --`/aksha 09:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)