Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 5

message: Wknight94's choice of words in his message sparked a thought that led to something I'm sure I'll regret.  But anyway, with apologies to Ed Cobb, Soft Cell, and everyone who reads this page, here it is:
Sometimes I feel I've got to
Run away I've got to
Get away
From the arguments we have on this damn page
The thoughts I've shared
Seem to go nowhere
And we've lost all senses
For we snip and snipe, we can't find consensus
(chorus)
Once I ran to you (I ran)
Now I'll run from you
This tainted poll you've given
I give you all my mind can give you
Take my views and that's not nearly all!
Oh... tainted poll
Tainted poll
Now I know I've got to
Run away I've got to
Get away
The agreement just isn't happening
It's a god damn shame
To name every ep the same
And disambiguate
When the TV names, they don't have no mate
(chorus)
Once I ran to you (I ran)
Now I'll run from you
This tainted poll you've given
I give you all my mind can give you
Take my views and that's not nearly all!
Oh... tainted poll
Tainted poll
Don't vote twice please
Can't we all just shoot the breeze
I've argued so but Elonka says no
Now I'm going to pack my things and go
Tainted poll, tainted poll
Don't vote baby, tainted poll
Tainted poll...
(repeat to fade)
—The preceding unsigned comment song was added by Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:39, 15 November 2006.
:I vote for Josiah Rowe as the support act for Wikimania 2007! -- Chuq 04:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This can become the first spoken sung article talk page --`/aksha 04:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some much needed humor! :D -- Ned Scott 06:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A musical view of the situation... 

message: Based on the earlier comment that a majority of Lost episodes need to be disambiguated, I checked the list.  Currently there are 13 episodes without disambiguation, and 38 with (Lost).  Seven of the 38 don't seem to require disamb, so they could be switched over, making 20 without and 31 with.  That's 62%, a majority but not anywhere close to almost all of them.  This also means that more of the episodes are following the TV naming guideline than aren't - is there currently some problem or confusion with the current state?  I haven't seen it.  Getting Lost to follow the guideline would require moving seven of the 51 articles - what disruption would occur if this were to happen?  I was also unable to find where the lost wikiproject decided that all episode names for the show should be predisambiguated, could someone point me to that decision?  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOST 

message: For the record, this discussion has not been going on for "several weeks", that is a distortion of elapsed time, which several people in this discussion seem to be having since they are posting multiple times per day.
To be clear: the RfC started on October 30 , along with a "poll" that was changed rapidly and drastically over the next few days , along with a continuation of non-consensus page moves being done in (what I regard as) a highly disruptive manner .  A few editors, a couple of which are almost certainly sockpuppets (and one of which, Izzy Dot, is currently blocked), posted rapidly and repeatedly in a very uncivil manner, attacking anyone who disagreed with them, reworking the "poll" to insert their own bias, and harassing other editors outside of this discussion .  "Debate" tactics generally involved belittling the opinions of other editors, ridicule, and complaining that if someone hadn't posted within hours, or that if they hadn't personally responded to every single editor's concern, that "they obviously didn't care anymore."  Any editor who disagreed, was immediately and incorrectly attacked as being "a lone voice."  
Over strong objections, a few editors (most notably Wknight94 and Ned Scott, whose incredibly disruptive tactics at the Lost WikiProject resulted in the guidelines page there being protected from editing) started declaring that the debate was "concluded" on November 3rd/4th (remember, the RfC only started on October 30). Much of the debate since that time has involved repeated calls for a new and clean poll, while other editors are effectively saying, "We've already made our decision, stop whining."  And, as before, the more disruptive editors are posting multiple times per day, making the discussion even harder to follow. When other editors wandered in from other WikiProjects and voiced a concern , they were immediately overwhelmed with the "multiple posters", who were incorrectly informing these new voices that the decision had already been made.  Any editors with good faith objections were either ignored, accused of bad faith, or labeled as "trolls," "whiners", or "sore losers."  And since some of the good faith editors were only posting once every couple days, in comparison to the attackers who were posting multiple times per day, the good faith objections were rapidly drowned out.
We need to give time, and provide a structure, for other editors than just the "multiple posters per day" to offer their opinion.  To repeat: I, and several other editors, want a new and clean poll.  Not a poll "to confirm the consensus that's already been made," but a clean, "Let's listen to all opinions with an open mind" discussion, which, per Wikipedia:Consensus is how these issues are supposed to be resolved on Wikipedia.  We have good faith objections to the current guideline, and they need to be addressed and debated, not just steamrollered in a few days with a claim of a supermajority "vote".  --Elonka 18:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus isn't needed to move pages.  Until there's a consensus to change this guideline, the guideline stays.  Wikipedia can't turn into the wild west every time someone says they're disputing a guideline.  Trying to characterize page moves bringing articles into compliance with the guidline as "highly disruptive" seems like empty rhetoric.  I'm glad people are moving pages, and I hope it continues.  So far, the moves haven't caused any problems I've seen, and have even demonstrated that both the process and the result are painless.  Exactly what "disruptive" result has these moves caused? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will point out that the Guideline did include an exception, for several months, until it was removed by Ned Scott, without consensus for said removal  (and he's been causing similar disruption at the Lost WikiProject).  I kept replacing it, he kept removing it .  I offered to modify the wording ,  and he removed that too, now claiming that consensus was needed to replace what he'd been removing in the first place .  Rather than continue to edit war, I moved the discussion to talk.  Then the November 3rd "declaration of a finished discussion" occurred.  I tried adding the  template to the page, which was again removed by Ned Scott .   Bottom line, I don't believe that it's appropriate to use "that's what the guideline says" as a reason for page moves, when the guideline has clearly been tampered with. --Elonka 20:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I know I said I would excuse myself, but someone's gotta ask; tell me again, what, exactly, is a "good faith objection"? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, if Elonka's words are read out of context, they seem to make sense.  If there is an argument to be made against the guideline as it currently stands, please, somebody, state it.  What's the problem with the guideline?  What problems are caused by adhering to it?  Yes, we know some editors have named articles contrary to the guideline.  But what's the reason?  Consistency within that group of articles?  What about consistency within Wikipedia?  Why should minor/local consistency trump global/general consistency?  Where's the argument?  Where is the reasonable basis to oppose the current guideline?  Absent such argument, there is nothing to discuss or have a "clean vote" on.  --Serge 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Elonka, I think you have a distorted view of the debate thus far. I am not a sock puppet. I do not post multiple times a day. I follow the debate when I can and add my two cents when necessary. Usually, I see people like Josiah Rowe and others being quite civil and bringing up very valid and relevant arguments, so mostly I don't bother increasing the volume of the debate. From the other side, I see you repeatedly shirk the real substantive questions and focus instead on what I and others believe to be irrelevant issues of procedure. In many ways, it's a lot like a fillibuster. If you want to gain some support for your procedural ideas, I would suggest first addressing the many counter-arguments put to you already. -Anþony 22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been content to watch this debate unfold without making any comments, but while I don't necessarily agree with Elonka's position, I don't think she's misusing the term "good faith". Why can't an objection be made in good faith, i.e. with good intentions? If one objects to something and one's intentions(however right or wrong, misguided or not they may be) are to improve Wikipedia, why shouldn't one call it a "good faith objection"? Whether or not one's intentions are actually good is a valid point for debate, but let's not let a perfectly reasonable term get caught in the crossfire... -- Fru1tbat 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Ned. Though Elonka seemed to have ignored me,—I may never know for certain.—I thought it'd be safer/best to ask a question and wait for a response rather than make an accusation. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, Fruity, assuming good faith on the part of another when you have little reason to belkeve otherwise is fine. No one's dissing "good faith". However, the uses by Elonka and her associates are misleading. Just take anyway the "faith" for second. What would you think of her just calling things "good"? A "good objection," or a "good exception". That's essentially what we're talking about. Now, you can slap on "faith" or use some other niceity/qualifier, but what have you really got? A proper use of a term or someone's attempt to reinforce their own arguments by playing on the acceptence and appreciate people—you, for example—give/have to such terms? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also makes the suggestion that our comments, concerns, and actions have not been with good intentions, which is clearly not true. For example, I can fairly say that I removed the Star Trek example in good faith. -- Ned Scott 02:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does appear that "good faith" was being thrown around inappropriately, and I know this is a heated debate, but the comment I was responding to ("what, exactly, is a 'good faith objection'?") read as attacking the actual term itself, not the context or the intent... -- Fru1tbat 02:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a claim of good faith was all that's needed to make an action right/acceptable, then Willy on Wheels would be an admin by now for all his "good faith moves". Personally, i've never had much faith in arguments based on assumptions of faith. --`/aksha 06:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why there is not yet a consensus