Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 4

message: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix, about the best way to consistently title Lost episodes (such as to use a suffix of "(Lost)" or "(Lost episode)").  Interested editors are invited to participate, to ensure consensus. --Elonka 23:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related discussion

message: I'm a bit confused over episode naming.  I have seen both Episode-name (Show-name) and Episode-name (Show-name episode) used.  General naming convention is to describe WHAT the item is, not where it is from - for example, (actor) and (politician) would be preferred for diambiguating two names, and if there were more than one politician, then (Australian politician) and (Canadian politician) would be preferred.  using (Australia) and (Canada) would be wrong using this method.
I would have expected television episodes naming conventions to be a subset of the general naming conventions - and as such use (Lost episode) and (Jericho episode) for example.  I have seen a few articles using just (Lost) which is wrong - the word "Lost" by itself doesn't do anything to tell you what the article is about, unless you already know that it is an episode of the show.  Looking deeper I have found that this is the recommended naming convention for WikiProject Television episodes!
Trying to find past discussion about this is tricky, I've found info scattered over WP:Naming conventions, WP:Naming conventions (television), WP:Disambiguation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes, and the associated talk pages.  I'm not sure where I should bring it up, but the episode naming convention should be "(Show name episode)" - it is after all a part of Wikipedia and where possible different projects should not have different naming schemes.
Note: Whether or not episode article names should be pre-emptively disambiguated is another topic altogether! -- Chuq 02:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a reasonable rational to me, I agree. -- Ned Scott 03:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode naming, again! 

message: Requesting comments for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix - a debate over the use of disambiguation titles for episode articles of a TV show when no disambiguation is needed. -- Ned Scott 21:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that this is the same discussion as was already pointed to, two sections up.  --Elonka 23:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same discussion, but it was originally noted for (Lost) vs (Lost episode) instead of where the current discussion is at. -- Ned Scott 00:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting comments for Lost episodes 

message: Sign to indicate which options you agree with.
====Poll Question 1: Disambiguate episode article titles only when necessary====
=====Support=====
A "support" vote means the disambiguation policy for television episode articles should be the same as the general policy: a title only should contain a parenthetical disambiguation if the title is ambiguous, and there are other articles with the same title.
#Support. Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: =====Support=====
A "support" vote means the disambiguation policy for television episode articles should be the same as the general policy: a title only should contain a parenthetical disambiguation if the title is ambiguous, and there are other articles with the same title.
#Support. Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll Question 1: Disambiguate episode article titles only when necessary

message: A "support" vote means the disambiguation policy for television episode articles should be the same as the general policy: a title only should contain a parenthetical disambiguation if the title is ambiguous, and there are other articles with the same title.
#Support. Izzy Dot (talk | contribs) 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: An "oppose" vote means the disambiguation policy for television episode articles should be an exception as the general policy: a television episode's article title should always include the name of the series it is in, regardless of whether or not the episode title is ambiguous.
# Strongly oppose thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: This section of the poll is regarding what form parenthetical disambiguations for television episodes should take. This is for all parenthetical disambiguations for television episodes, regardless of whether all episodes have parenthetical disambiguations, or only those which are ambiguous.
=====(NameOfSeries) =====
#Support -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll Question 2: Format of the disambiguation title 

message: #Support -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (NameOfSeries) 

message: # Support --Elonka 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (NameOfSeries episode)

message: I hope that everyone at least can agree that worrying about an episode article name should be the last thing we think about. It is first important to determine if individual articles are even the best way to go. A "natural" progress for inclusion of episode information should be:
# Basic list and very short summary in main series article
# Split basic list into a separate "List of SeriesName episodes", longer summaries
# Split "List of" into "SeriesName (season #)" articles, with longer summaries and production information
# Split individual, noteworthy, episodes out of season articles
# Move episodes into individual articles (when each episode attains "noteworthiness" just by virtue of being part of such a popular series)
Too many bad situations are caused by people jumping right to #5. -- Netoholic @ 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct, Netaholic, and indeed it's the order of business suggested at WP:EPISODE.  And perhaps that guideline should be enforced more strictly than it is.  However, since people are creating individual episode articles, it would be nice if those articles were named in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.  That's what we're working on here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Over all, it's not the most important issue, but this is WP:TV-NAME.. -- Ned Scott 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On this episode article issue, I mostly agree with Netoholic.  When we start documenting a particular series, we shouldn't immediately create individual episode articles, but instead should first start with a basic overview page, which perhaps contains a brief summarized list of episodes.  Then as this grows, the list can be split off to a "List of episodes" page.  Then if the series is shown to be definitely notable, that list can start hubbing out to individual episodes, starting with the most notable ones.  Where I think I disagree though, is that only the most notable episodes should have individual pages, and that others should be kept strictly in summary form.  I think that if a series is already at the point of creating individual episode pages, it becomes very difficult to decide which episodes are "page-worthy" and which aren't, so if someone really wants to go to the trouble of creating a page on every episode at that point, it's not going to hurt anything.  But the series should definitely start at the "one-page-fits-all" point, rather than immediately jumping to a later step. --Elonka 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's more like #4 above is a transitional step (usually) to #5.  I think there are a few situations a series would have only a few separate episode articles (M*A*S*H is a good example, 11 seasons, and only a handful of episodes are of note). That is not the most common case, though, and I think most series should stop at #2 or #3. -- Netoholic @ 09:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming is not the most important issue

message: Per Wikipedia:Guideline: "People are sometimes tempted to call a vote on a guideline, but this is a bad idea because it polarizes the issue (see Voting is evil for details). Instead, a guideline is made by listening to objections and resolving them."  As regards this naming conventions guideline, it is clear that there are objections, so the guideline should reflect that there is controversy. A few people repeatedly saying that there isn't controversy, and making personal attacks or otherwise harassing anyone raising good faith objections, is not "listening to objections and resolving them." I have offered a compromise wording, which is to state a primary method of titling episodes, while admitting that exceptions (and controversy) exist.  I think that's pretty fair.  If someone wants to suggest different wording though, I'm listening. --Elonka 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline clearly is controversial per the extreme objections to it and per Elonka’s above comments. A few people popping up after there friends reply saying “I AGREE”, “Me two!!”, “Yuperz! Me agrees as well.”, “Wow” I couldn’t agree more”, “Agree, agree, agree!” so does not cancel out the significant objections of others. MatthewFenton (talk contribs &site=en.wikipedia.org count email) 21:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no such mindless agreements here, Matthew.  The participants in this conversation have expressed reasons and support for their positions, and I have yet to see a fully reasoned objection to the current wording. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll use the term false compromise again.  The idea that 24 people need to meet 7 people halfway is very much false.  We've listened (with surprising patience at multiple sites) to the objections and the resolution as I understand it is "leave it as it is".  You can throw around red herrings about personal attacks and harassment all day if you want - the resolution still seems crystal clear to me.  (Again, this is in regards to the exception verbiage which I believe is your chief issue). —Wknight94 (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also dispute the notion that those supporting the current wording are treating this as a "vote" or ignoring the concerns of the dissenters.  There is a broad agreement, with a few vocal opponents.  Wknight94 and others have given clear reasons about why it is not a good idea to include mention of "exceptions" in the guideline.  If the objections were more widespread, I could support such a wording, but as it is there are only a few editors objecting, and they have not (in my view) sufficiently justified their arguments.  WikiProject precedent is not a sufficient reason to formalize an exception to core Wikipedia guidelines.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Elonka, over and over again, any time a naming guideline for a particular area violates the basic naming conventions for Wikipedia, in particular WP:NC, WP:NC(CN) and WP:D, controversy and conflict errupt.  The only way to have a naming convention specific to some area not conflict with the basic naming principles is to have it apply only when a known ambiguity issue exists.  The purpose of these area-specific conventions should be to specify what to do in a particular naming area when and only when there is an ambiguity situation to resolve, so that ambiguities are resolved in a consistent fashion.  But please do not make the mistake of then using these ambiguity-resolving naming conventions on articles that don't even have an ambiguity issue to resolve; that's blatant and pointless violation of the general naming guidelines, and leads to conflict and controversy.  Why advocate for that?  --Serge 21:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About guidelines and consensus

message: Every article in Wikipedia, including every article about a TV episode, should be named in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, including WP:NC, WP:NC(CN), WP:D, etc.  More specific naming guidelines should only apply in those cases where a known ambiguity issue exists.  That is, if the name of the episode is not used in Wikipedia for any other article, that should be the name of the article about that episode, period.  If there is an ambiguity issue, then it's appropriate to look for guidelines here and/or at an appropriate Wikiproject, but, even then, those are only guidelines.  In the end, each article should be treated independently.  Trying to impose a naming convention that inherently violates fundamental general Wikipedia naming conventions only creates conflict, and understandably so.  — Serge 16:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "More specific naming guidelines should only apply in those cases where a known ambiguity issue exists."  Where specifically is that said on one of the pages you linked to?  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it's not stated anywhere, and, so, we have endless bickering and consternation.  It should say that somewhere so that we would not have all this conflict.  --Serge 18:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You are correct that "trying to impose a naming convention that inherently violates fundamental general Wikipedia naming conventions only creates conflict."  That's why the current wording of the guideline is an attempt to make certain that television episodes follow the general Wikipedia naming conventions, instead of being an exception to them. It's an effort to avoid future conflict. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, and I support the current wording of the guideline for TV episodes for this reason.  --Serge 19:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treat each article independently 

message: There is a TV episode article entitled Hole in One.  There is a requested move survey to move it to Hole in One (TV episode) at Talk:Hole in One. --Serge 22:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move survey in progress: Hole in One 

message: Is it easier to find a page with "episode" in its title, based on wikipedia's search? Is putting the word "episode" in the first sentence equivalent?  What if you search for "csi episode"?  Do we care about how the search results may change?  - Peregrinefisher 07:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that by using redirects we can get the exact same results. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's easier to find? 

message: Seeing as though this discussion is petering out and certainly has gone nowhere as far as explaining a Lost-specific exception to the guideline, I don't personally see a problem with bringing the Lost episode articles at question to WP:RM now.  Any strong objections?  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a good idea to wait, just a little. I can see this thing finishing up pretty soon now. --`/aksha 11:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, give it a few days, just to reduce tension. >Radiant< 12:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do.  I don't see the two main holdouts agreeing to anything final anytime soon but I'll hold off as a courtesy.  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost episode move requests? 

message: I changed this:
:Where an episode title is the same as a character or similar object also present in the series, disambiguate further using the word "episode":
to this:
:Where an episode title is the same as a character or object from the series which might reasonably have its own page, disambiguate further using the word "episode":
because otherwise episodes named after characters who don't necessarily deserve their own pages (such as The Outrageous Okona or Inca Mummy Girl) might get disambiguated.  Recording my reasoning here in case anyone disagrees. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where an episode title is the same as a character or object from the series which has its own page, disambiguate further using the word "episode":
Requiring a page move in the rare instances where a page is created with a conflicting character or object name is no big deal.  We require the same for any undisambiguated episode title should another page with the same name in Wikipedia be created.  --Serge 06:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite reasonable, and I've gone ahead and made the change. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to beat this to death, but this seems to raise a small problem to me. Isn't the usual disambiguation method on Wikipedia to first disambiguate by the most general term? For example, the WP:NC guideline for books is to first use "novel" or "short story", and only to include the author's name when just the type isn't enough. Same with albums ("album" first, then band name), films ("film" first, then year), etc. In other words, the primary disambiguator is what the item is, not what it relates to. This method appears to be used almost exclusively. With that in mind, shouldn't "episode" be the preferred disambiguator here, and the series name only be used when additionally needed? Using the series name first seems to be contrary to established conventions. -- Fru1tbat 14:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right but that might send you off into every other part of Wikipedia because that guideline breakage is done everywhere.  Take a look through any category of baseball players and you'll find an unpleasant mix of (baseball player) and (baseball) and (athlete) and (outfielder) and (Twins player), etc.  That mistake is far more prevalent than this first issue being discussed here.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree strongly with Fru1tbat - I mentioned up here that (24), (Medium), (House), (Lost) or (Oz) after a name may be more confusing, causing readers to think that there is a Small and Large version of something, or that a House episode name refers is an article about a type of building.  No-one else has really agreed with me though so I have left it alone.  Wknight, just because other areas of Wikipedia may need cleanup in this regard, doesn't mean we can't be the first! -- Chuq 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sorry to sneak in here after the fact) Chuq, that's fine to be the first but that's a holy war I'm not passionate enough to fight in.  But best of luck to you in that battlefield!  :)  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The policy really says to use the simplest method of disambiguation. The word episode could also cause confusion, because it really means an incident as part of a series. We'd probably then have to specify that these are television episodes to avoid that confusion. The series name is probably the simplest and least confusing way to disambiguate. Even with the examples given there would be a difference between Pilot (House) and Pilot (house) the former being an aspect of the tv series House named Pilot and the latter a house named Pilot. I know some of you don't like the capital letter disambiguation, but when people search with capital letters they're generally looking for a proper noun. Also, using the series name rather than episode will avoid all conflicts of two tv series having the same episode name. We don't want to have arguments about which episode is more notable and therefore gets the shorter title. I was in one of the discussions between Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state), and it was not pretty. Jay32183 21:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes - the capital would give it away to me - but the general reader may not.  I think there is less chance of confusion with the word "episode" though.  Compare to the term "(character)" where I used "(Jericho character)" as a disambiguator; the word "character" by itself isn't really very specific, it could even refer to a non-fictional person, so I usually go with the full descriptor (series and "item") for characters.  See :Category:Jericho characters -- Chuq 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the character thing I've been leaning towards stuff like Jack Spicer (Xiaolin Showdown) rather than Jack Spicer (character). The term character may be confusing, what Jack Spicer am I talking about. But knowing it's the Xiaolin Showdown Jack Spicer, I don't actually need to know it's a character because I now know it isn't any other Jack Spicer. Jay32183 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualification 

message: I thought I'd check in here, as I've had to start a deletion review over an episode article that was deleted on the grounds that, according to guidelines, episodes with more than one part should be included entirely within the same article. Can anyone cite or otherwise verify this for me, or is it a load of hooey? --BlueSquadronRaven 18:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anywhere that says you have to do it as one, but there are features if that's what you want at Template:TVep. - Peregrinefisher 19:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I was sure I'd seen a guideline page that stated that multi-part articles should only have one article... Ah, there it is: Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes/structure. Kind of an obscure place for such a guideline, but there it is: "Multipart episodes should have only one article." For what it's worth, I agree. To me, the title of an episode is more significant than how many parts it happened to be broadcast in, especially considering the number of parts may differ between original broadcast and syndication/DVD, or different broadcast markets anyway. If the producers choose to use the same title for more than one part, it's probably better to keep them in the same article. -- Fru1tbat 19:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's truly one episode, one entry is fine.  If they have their own credits and different guest stars or whatever, I think they should get multiple entries. - Peregrinefisher 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's still not grounds for a deletion. The pages should be merged and then left as redirects to keep the edit history in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Jay32183 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, very little would be lost in the deletion of the articles I'm currently asking about this for. Only some infobox information would need to be transcribed. The rest of the article is basically only a starting point for more to be added. And, as such, it has already been moved about. Thanks!--BlueSquadronRaven 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-part episodes 

message: OK, we've decided to follow WP's rules for disambiguation.  Let's decide if a page that must be disambiguated should have (showname) or (showname episode) appended to it.  Obviously, if (showname) is chosen and it's already taken by a character page or someting, use (showname episode). - Peregrinefisher 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (showname) or (showname episode)

message: # support Let's keep it as simple as possible. - Peregrinefisher 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (showname)

message: The last hour I've stepped through each edit difference during the poll. I've made the following notes to show who voted during what "version" of the poll. The poll format did get changed, but I only found three different formats that contained votes.
So lets start:
Argash sets up RfC with the basic concept, pre-poll format 
Izzy Dot formats a poll based on Argash's RfC summary and suggestions 
Note: struck out editors are those who confirmed their vote in a later format. Editors in italics confirmed their vote later on in discussion, etc under the 2nd format.
Votes (1st format)
#Elonka
#MatthewFenton
#Shannernanner
#SigmaEpsilon
#Marky1981
#Wknight94
#EEMeltonIV
#Mnemeson
#Josiah Rowe
#Opark 77
#Nohat
#Khaosworks
Izzy Dot removes "opposes" in all three sections
Votes (1st format, continued, no "formating" has been changed)
#Thedemonhog
#Argash
#Izzy Dot
I changed the bullets to numbers (* -> #) for easy counting 
I make the first major change to the poll since it started (same day).  In this change the two issues become separated. What people supported previously is still "true", however some of the previous editors may need to list themselves under the new oppose section of "Disambig only when necessary". I then note this in the discussion.
Votes (2nd format)
#EnsRedShirt
#Ned Scott
#ThuranX
#Ace Class Shadow
#Jay32183
#Xornok
#SigmaEpsilon
#Izhmal
#Nihonjoe
#Peregrinefisher
#Wikipedical
#Chuq
Izzy Dot makes second poll change 
No votes take place in this format
I make third poll change, reverting back to 2nd format 
Note: I restore Matthew's oppose of "Disambig only when necessary", which was marked as an oppose before the oppose section was created. 
Votes (2nd format, continued)
#Percy Snoodle
Shannernanner makes fourth poll change, adds oppose sections to the section issue options .
Votes (3rd format)
#Harris000
#Ac1983fan
#Nohat
#Thedemonhog
#Josiah Rowe
#Yaksha
I revert back to 2nd format 
Votes (2nd format, continued)
#Nohat
#Josiah Rowe
#Shannernanner
#Jay32183 (vote on second issue)
Elonka makes poll change, format and re-definition of sections similar to the 1st version  
No votes take place with this format
Note: Jay32183 did strike a comment because of the change, but un-struck it after it was reverted)
I revert back to 2nd format 
Votes (2nd format, continued)
#Argash
#EEMeltonIV
#Elonka
#Oggleboppiter
#Anþony
#JHunterJ
#AnemoneProjectors
#Serge Issakov
#SergeantBolt
#GhostStalker
#BlueSquadronRaven
#Mickiscoole
Now lets update those lists excluding anyone who later made their vote clear.
1st format
#Marky1981
#Mnemeson
#Opark 77
#Khaosworks
2nd format
#EnsRedShirt
#Ned Scott
#ThuranX
#Ace Class Shadow
#Jay32183
#Xornok
#SigmaEpsilon
#Izhmal
#Nihonjoe
#Peregrinefisher
#Wikipedical
#Chuq
#Nohat
#Josiah Rowe
#Shannernanner
#Argash
#EEMeltonIV
#Oggleboppiter
#Anþony
#JHunterJ
#AnemoneProjectors
#Serge Issakov
#SergeantBolt
#GhostStalker
#BlueSquadronRaven
#Mickiscoole
#Yaksha
#Elonka
#MatthewFenton
#Wknight94
#Percy Snoodle
3rd format
#Harris000
#Ac1983fan
#Thedemonhog
So..
These editors have not updated or "confirmed" their vote:
#Harris000
#Ac1983fan
#Thedemonhog
#Marky1981
#Mnemeson
#Opark 77
#Khaosworks
Now lets see who voted support for "disambig only when necessary" (Regardless of format, we know they supported this. We only don't know what they supported for Disambig title):
#Harris000
#Ac1983fan
#Thedemonhog
#Khaosworks
The only editors who didn't vote under the 2nd format and didn't note support for "disambig only when necessary" were:
#Marky1981
#Mnemeson
#Opark 77
This much we know is true from the poll. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad it was you and not me who had to do that! -- Chuq 07:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice - and yet I bet it falls on deaf ears.  And of course it's ironic to see that Elonka is one of the editors who altered the poll and is now trying to use poll-altering as a reason for appeal.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who voted under what poll format 

message: I just started to fix the Frasier episode names - adding redirects or fixing disambigs as needed - and found The Good Son as a good example of why I suggested "(episode)" as a disambiguator rather than the show name.  Not trying to change the standard now - just pointing out an example. -- Chuq 08:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what happens, if another series also has an episode called "The Good Son"? Wouldn't it be easier then to have "The Good Son (Frasier)" and "The Good Son (some other series)"? Rather than "The Good Son (episode, Frasier)" and "The Good Son (episode, some other series). --`/aksha 08:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, obviously that would be The Good Son (Frasier episode) and The Good Son (Other-series episode).  Just like as is done in Author! Author! - although you will notice the (Seriesname)/(Seriesname episode) difference of convention here.  I have also found some examples with some film names - we have Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Frequency (film), Bedazzled (2000 film) and Gossip (2000 Swedish film) named as such - we only add as much detail as is needed to disambiguate it from other items with the same name, in these examples, nothing for the first title, Frequency, Bedazzled (1967 film) and Gossip (2000 American film).  We don't use Bedazzled (2000) or Gossip (Swedish) as they are undescriptive.  I hope I don't look like I am trying to undo an entire page of discussion but these examples demonstrate what I have been thinking the entire time! -- Chuq 09:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, i sort of see your point now. Personally, i don't have much of an opinion on how to disambiguate. Seeing everything (all episodes) using the same format would be nice, but i have a feeling it'll end up taking far more effort getting everyone to agree than it's worth. --`/aksha 09:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think what you're running into is the reality that how any given page is disambiguated - that is, how you determine what should go into the parenthesis - should depend much more on what the other uses of that particular name are, and much less on how other other pages within that category happen to be disambiguated.  But I think most people look at the problem from the other perspective - trying to make every page within a category disambiguated consistently as being the higher priority.  The extreme of that view is exemplified by U.S. cities - preferring consistency in the disambiguated naming format (Cityname, Statename) even for articles that don't need to be disambiguated (e.g., San Francisco, California). --Serge 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it comes down to the fact that the ultimate purpose of disambiguation is to differentiate between two things which is actually ambiguous. Although i have to admit trying to get everything to look nice is very tempting =) --`/aksha 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly correct.  We just have to remember the priorities.  The first priority is to use the most common name.  If we can't because that name conflicts with another use of the same name, the second priority is distinguishing from the other uses.  Finally, if we can distinguish in a manner that is consistent with the way other articles in the same category are disambiguated, that's a nice bonus.  But we should not sacrifice the first two priorities in order to meet the third.  --Serge 06:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point, I agree. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  using (episode) 

message: I look through categories regularly at WP but am still learning many things about editing properly. In this specific case, I am looking through tv-related categories and I see many more articles without "(TV series)" than with. Does this mean we should move every appropriate article to a new name containing "TV series" or other appropriate title suffix or only do so under specific circumstances? -- CobraWiki (jabber|stuff) 22:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TV series is added after a series if it shares its name with another Wikipedia article. Generally on Wikipedia articles are given the simplest name possible. Jay32183 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Big Love episodes is a good example of a category of episode articles where some are disambiguated and some are not. --`/aksha 02:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CobraWiki is asking about the actual TV series episodes themselves, like Lost (TV series), Torchwood, etc. and to that I have to say NO WAY.  21 Jump Street, Crossing Jordan and The Chaser's War on Everything are NOT going to get confused with anything else, so they don't need disambiguation.  If such a decision got consensus then you might as well split anything TV related off to another site and delete all future TV related articles from Wikipedia.  (CobraWiki, I know you were just questioning "why not" and not saying that "we should" so I'm not targetting this aggravation at you - but I'm just making sure other people don't get any ideas!) -- Chuq 04:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All TV articles should be named this way?