Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 6

message: I'd like to clarify what I meant and what Elonka summarized briefly as "no exceptions". I don't think we should tolerate any exceptions to the guideline in the long run. If there is some show or aticle in general that doesn't fit into the guidelines and strict enforcement would lead to an article or articles of lesser quality, then in the short term it may make sense to ignore the guidelines and do what seems reasonable instead. However, once this hypothetical exception is allowed, it is important to examine the particulars of the situation, form a generalized solution, and establish specific criteria to handle similar cases in the future. In that way, the guideline changes to accomodate the situation and obviates the need for an exception (and for future bickering about the same question over and over).
Applied to our current situation, it has not been shown that there is anything particular or peculiar about Lost, Star Trek, or the others not covered under the current guideline. (#Answer this question) Consequently, if allowed, it would be flatly impossible to form a generalized solution for the guideline. New series would follow one pattern or the other based on the whim of whoever gets there first. It is that sort of long-term exception to which I am opposed, on what you might call "religious grounds". -Anþony 02:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No exceptions clarification

message: It's confusing and it's long standing practise.  Wikipedia doesn't standardise for the sake of it, per arb-com, and it doesn't confuse readers.  We only disambiguate when we have to. Hiding Talk 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you meant "not confusing," Hiding. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No disambiguation unless necessary 

message: Poll closed. . This is an inappropriate topic for a straw poll, and is making the issue too personal. Personal issues don't belong on a guideline talk page. (Radiant) 08:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo, Radiant!  Thank you. -- PKtm 14:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Radiant.  While some people have gotten frustrated with Elonka's comments, I am grateful that someone is arguing for a more open, fair, and consistentl y transparant process.  I have never taken part in this particular debate, and haven't been editing LOST articles for very long, but I just spent the last hour reading through this entire discussion and there is just way too much meanness and accusations. Elonka's statements have often been misconstrued and insulted in a hostile and unconstructive way.  This whole conversation was completely unconstructive.  I agree completely with Elonka's statement that this kind of nonsense scares the hell out of newer editors, it was a long time before I started editing LOST pages, because LOST folx can get so hateful about things.  I agree with her that there should be a new, clean, well-advertised discussion since this seems to be a hot issue.  It will provide closure and nobody can cry foul play.  I was unaware of the discussion when it happened, I would like a place to give my opinion now that I know about this. Riverbend 16:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good place to give your opinion is regarding the move request for Lost articles just below.  --Serge 16:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strawpoll: Is Elonka filibustering? 

message: Just reposting the list for everyone's convience since i'm about to achieve the top half of this talk page. --`/aksha 03:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I would prefer that people stop engaging in page moves for now.  The guideline is in dispute, there is no clear consensus here at talk, and the issue is proceeding to mediation.  Further page moves at this time are just going to escalate tension, so please, let's just leave things alone for now. --Elonka 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programs needing to be moved 

message: Lost articles are being moved, just like the episode articles for all the series listed above. 
Most of the pages have already been moved. For the ones which haven't, i had them tagged for speedy deletion. But some of them were overturned by other editors who stated they could find no consensus for the move. 
I've listed these at Request Moves, but decided this was the most relevant place to place the discussion. (note, request move tags have been placed on the three articles, but the "discuss" link on them points here)
===Requested move===
 all moved. -- nae'blis 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This goes against what the nom claims, that these three are the only three with suffixes. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not what i claimed. But Elonka's statement is indeed misleading. The current guildline says to "disambiguate ONLY when needed". This is the guildlines that all lost articles, except for these three, follow. These three do not follow the guideline because they are disambiguated when there is absolutely no need for the disambiguation. I linked to the category of lost articles in my nomination so people could click on it and see/judge for themselves. --`/aksha 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Lost articles have already been debated at the Lost WikiProject." As a participant at WikiProject Lost, I find that statement rather.. odd. The only debate that took place was the one that lead into this current debate. The mediation on Lost episode articles never talked about episode titles. So where was this discussion? Was there reasonable rational for this explanation? How many people were involved in the discussion? -- Ned Scott 07:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And my question still goes unanswered. #Answer this question Jay32183 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It has been what, six days now?  How do these get closed?  Seems like it's been long enough, and sure looks like a consensus.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently listed as backlog (here) on the Request Moves page, so i'd assume it will be done once an admin with spare time comes around and sees it. --`/aksha 11:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving lost articles 

message: all moved. -- nae'blis 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This goes against what the nom claims, that these three are the only three with suffixes. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not what i claimed. But Elonka's statement is indeed misleading. The current guildline says to "disambiguate ONLY when needed". This is the guildlines that all lost articles, except for these three, follow. These three do not follow the guideline because they are disambiguated when there is absolutely no need for the disambiguation. I linked to the category of lost articles in my nomination so people could click on it and see/judge for themselves. --`/aksha 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Lost articles have already been debated at the Lost WikiProject." As a participant at WikiProject Lost, I find that statement rather.. odd. The only debate that took place was the one that lead into this current debate. The mediation on Lost episode articles never talked about episode titles. So where was this discussion? Was there reasonable rational for this explanation? How many people were involved in the discussion? -- Ned Scott 07:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And my question still goes unanswered. #Answer this question Jay32183 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It has been what, six days now?  How do these get closed?  Seems like it's been long enough, and sure looks like a consensus.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently listed as backlog (here) on the Request Moves page, so i'd assume it will be done once an admin with spare time comes around and sees it. --`/aksha 11:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support, per WP:NC-TV and the discussion there. -- Ned Scott 03:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This goes against what the nom claims, that these three are the only three with suffixes. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not what i claimed. But Elonka's statement is indeed misleading. The current guildline says to "disambiguate ONLY when needed". This is the guildlines that all lost articles, except for these three, follow. These three do not follow the guideline because they are disambiguated when there is absolutely no need for the disambiguation. I linked to the category of lost articles in my nomination so people could click on it and see/judge for themselves. --`/aksha 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Lost articles have already been debated at the Lost WikiProject." As a participant at WikiProject Lost, I find that statement rather.. odd. The only debate that took place was the one that lead into this current debate. The mediation on Lost episode articles never talked about episode titles. So where was this discussion? Was there reasonable rational for this explanation? How many people were involved in the discussion? -- Ned Scott 07:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And my question still goes unanswered. #Answer this question Jay32183 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Add any additional comments
*I wish to point out that "we should keep it the way it is for convenience" is not a valid argument if someone can be found willing to make the change. I note that Elonka and Ned Scott dissent over whether this issue was discussed on WP:LOST. I've found a debate on its "guidelines" page that involves several editors also active here, and does not seem to have the claimed consensus to "always use suffixes". So I would say that yes, it was discussed, but no, it was not concluded. If I'm missing something here, please give me a link. (Radiant) 09:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been what, six days now?  How do these get closed?  Seems like it's been long enough, and sure looks like a consensus.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently listed as backlog (here) on the Request Moves page, so i'd assume it will be done once an admin with spare time comes around and sees it. --`/aksha 11:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Here is something I suspect we might all be able to agree on!  There is a move request to move Lost (TV series) to Lost.  Most of the people voting are opposed to the move for reasons that do not make sense.  The fact is, Lost is much like Stephen King's book Misery (upon which the movie is based).  Yes, "misery" is a common word in English, but there is no Wikipedia article about that usage, nor should there be.  That leaves that term open for usage by the primary topic that uses that term, which, in the case of "Misery", is King's book.  I think Lost is in an analogous situation (except more people dislike Lost and so don't want to see it at Lost, I suspect).  Maybe I'm missing something, and I really dislike the Lost TV series, but the reasons given by the opposers to this move do not make sense to me.  I mean, what else would someone be looking for if not the TV series when searching for "Lost" in Wikipedia?  Please join in at Talk:Lost (TV series)#Requested Move. --Serge 20:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lost is currently a disambiguation page. I don't know what they hope to accomplish. I doubt it'll go forth just on that basis alone. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even better... the same nominator is tryng to get Lost, Scotland deleted in order to help pave the way. Someone should tell this person to come down. Oh, wait, I already have. --BlueSquadronRaven 00:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, if the move got consensus the disambiguation page Lost would be moved to Lost (disambiguation).  However, it's fairly clear (and was clear from the two previous move requests on this subject) that there won't be a consensus to move that page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of move request survey: [[Lost (TV series)]] -> [[Lost]] 

message: Feel free to add/remove/change comments here if you believe the information is incorrect.  You can also add your own name if you would like.
*Matthewfenton: "proceed with this" 
* Englishrose: "the poll does need to be redone" 
* PeregrineFisher: "let's redo it" 
* PKtm: "I think this wording is clear enough, and I'd like to (again) encourage that we proceed" 
* Argash: Start the poll over 
* Josiah Rowe: A new poll is not necessary, but is preferable to continued mudslinging 
* Oggleboppiter "I think having a new poll is a fantastic idea" 
* Elonka: "The old poll was a mess.  Let's have a new one, run in a clean manner, with wording that is agreed-upon ahead of time". --Elonka 08:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said way way above somewhere, I would dispute if a new poll were to give different results because the attrition here has probably rendered a few people catatonic.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Before long, admins alone are going to outnumber the minority on this issue.  Five and counting...  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, here! The poll has been done and consensus has been reached, and it is particularly valid not because we waited for every possible person on the Wiki to sound off on it, but because those who are actively engaged in editing of television episode articles have made their thoughts known. Please put a bullet in this issue and move on. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for a new poll

message: There's no need for a new poll, consensus has been demonstrated and I think at this point we have to consider guidance at WP:CONSENSUS, namely, that "It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially the neutral point of view (NPOV). At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."  Hiding Talk 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before long, admins alone are going to outnumber the minority on this issue.  Five and counting...  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, here! The poll has been done and consensus has been reached, and it is particularly valid not because we waited for every possible person on the Wiki to sound off on it, but because those who are actively engaged in editing of television episode articles have made their thoughts known. Please put a bullet in this issue and move on. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No need for a new poll