Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 7

message: Here's the latest version of recommended poll wording:
::==Straw poll==
::ISSUE IN QUESTION: The general practice for article naming on Wikipedia is for articles to be titled with the simplest form that is not ambiguous with other titles. Parenthetical suffixes are usually used for disambiguation. However, on a recent review of the situation, it was discovered that many hundreds of pages for television episodes have been created with parenthetical suffixes, even though their titles are not ambiguous. Some television program WikiProjects (such as WikiProject Star Trek, WikiProject Buffyverse, and WikiProject Stargate) have recommended the use of suffixes such as (<seriesname>) or (<seriesname> episode) as a general practice (example: Star Trek episodes); others have followed the general guidelines (example: Babylon 5 episodes)
::Some editors feel that the general disambiguation guidelines should be followed, and all pages for episodes with unambiguous titles should be moved to names without a suffix. Others believe that all television episode articles should have suffixes appended, whether their titles are ambiguous or not. Still others believe that the editors of a particular program, like with a WikiProject or other group of interested editors, should be able to determine what pattern works best for that show.  
::This poll is to gauge opinions on the matter.  Please do not simply answer with "Support" or "Oppose", but indicate your actual opinion on any or all of the questions below:
::===Question #1 - appropriateness of suffixes ===
::When is it appropriate for TV series episode articles to use a suffix (such as (<seriesname> episode)? Should this be reserved strictly for cases where another article already exists by that name (i.e., for disambiguation), or is it acceptable for some series to always use regular suffixes in order to provide for a consistent naming system? Should groups of interested editors, such as those in a WikiProject, be allowed to establish consistent naming conventions for their particular show, or should a single pattern of naming be applied to all television episode articles on Wikipedia, regardless of series?
::=== Question #2 - what type of suffix should be used?===
::In cases where a suffix is to be used, is it better to use (<series>), (<series> episode), or to allow other methods (such as the Star Trek abbreviation system), as long as it is consistent throughout that series?
::===Other comments=== 
If anyone has trouble with any of the above wording, please suggest changes below.  If no one has concerns with wording within the next few days, we'll go ahead and proceed with the poll. Thanks. --Elonka 00:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good Elonka, I my self can think of over 1 thousand articles that use(d? - due to unilateral moving) suffixes and so I propose it be changed to "over 1 thousand" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter what the wording of the poll is, the poll is unacceptable. I can no longer assume good faith at this point. Assuming good faith would imply that you don't know any better, but it's been explained so many times that it isn't possible. Suggesting a poll is spitting in the face of everyone who has participated in the discussion and is the most disruptive and uncivil behavior that one can engage in at this point. The page moves will continue because there is no consensus to overturn the existing guideline. If you won't talk about the naming convention then stop participating in this discussion. Jay32183 01:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You da man, Jay! Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess according to my talk page, pointing out that Elonka isn't being civil is an act of incivility. Jay32183 01:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those messages are BS. The very coy, unoriginal titling alone is reason to ignore it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've actually bothered to read question one now and I have a serious problem with not only asking that question here but anywhere on Wikipedia. It makes the assumption that there are closed groups on Wikipedia. The reason a WikiProject can't go against Wikipedia wide consensus is that the project couldn't have generated consensus unless it ignored everyone else on Wikipedia. Basically, you're asking "Even though it's been agreed that everyone should do things this way can this smaller group agree to do things differently as long as we don't get caught?" What's even worse is that you've made claims in other parts of this discussion that if it takes too long for you to "get caught" that your change shouldn't be undone. Jay32183 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this for real, or am I stuck in a time warp?  I strongly oppose doing another redundant poll, it's been disruptive enough already and this just adds to the disruption.  If you want to poll, do it on a Request for Move page.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested poll wording, December 2006

message: I realize that some people are opposed to a new poll, and are clinging to the results of the old one, but I think it's clear the old one was run in a very biased manner.  A new survey would help clarify the exact issues in dispute, and would allow everyone to participate, even the casual editors who are not following this discussion on an hourly (or even daily) basis.  I've been receiving many complaints from people who say that they want to weigh in on this discussion, but they're confused as to what exactly is being discussed.  And I have to agree, that there are a few people here who seem to be posting so many times per day, that it makes it very difficult to follow things.  ArbCom has ruled that polls are appropriate in situations where there a large number of editors.
Other editors also want a new poll, though they're not posting in this discussion on a daily basis.  A a review though:
*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".  	 
* Riverbend: "There should be a new, clean, well-advertised discussion since this seems to be such a hot issue."  	 
A clean and fairly-run survey would help to show where the consensus genuinely lies, and would help clarify who's on which side of the issue.  I strongly recommend that we proceed. --Elonka 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the lengthy list of people who feel the first poll correctly represented their views?  Where is the list of people who feel another poll does not need to be run?  With diffs please like you did above.  Surely you're not going to give only one view of this issue, right?  That would be disappointing.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I've been receiving many complaints from people who say that they want to weigh in on this discussion" - could you point us to these "many complaints"?  If "many" are saying this, why don't they say it here?  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Milo. We're sorry if people have all been complaining to you directly, Elonka, for a new poll. Certainly, it's not your "problem" to fix. Direct them here and advise them to speak for themselves. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for a new poll

message: Hello. My 'name' is Wikizach. I have been asked to be an informal mediator. I would like to know everything that is going on, so if you can, please tell me on my talk page. I would greatly like to support a fair vote. Please sumbit your requests to me. Thank you. WikieZach| talk 01:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the offer, but I don't think informal mediation will be of much use at this point. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ned — I think we need formal mediation.  Also, one of the issues under dispute is that the majority of editors on this page believe that a second vote is not necessary, as a consensus was established in the discussion following the first vote.  Therefore, coming into the discussion by saying "I would greatly like to support a fair vote" is not neutral.  I am working on a proposal for formal mediation at WP:RFM. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For you to get to Medcom or Arbcom you need First stage mediation. My comment about "fairness" is of many things I have found in reviewing the logs of this dispute. I believe mediation is always possible, if we try it, I would then be glad to help a case to the Mediation committee. Remember, it requires all parties to sign on, and as far as I can tell, there are many parties. And a direct appeal to the Arb. Com. will not work, they require 'prior review'. WikieZach| talk 02:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  has already attempted informal mediation.  It was clearly unsuccessful as any further informal mediation would be.  Your input is appreciated though.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I couldn't be of more help. I wish you best of luck with mediation. (Radiant) 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Radiant may of tried but it would of never worked as he lost his neutrality. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *By its very nature, a neutral party can disagree with you - because if you knew in advance that the party would agree with you, then it wouldn't be a neutral party. (Radiant) 10:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: **No apology necessary, Radiant.  You'll notice I didn't speculate on why your informal mediation failed.  Hint: it wasn't your fault.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help, Radiant!  Riverbend 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Mediation 

message: I have filed a formal mediation request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), and will be contacting all participants.  Since so many people have participated in this discussion, I listed only those who have made significant comments recently; however, as far as I'm concerned anyone who wishes to join the mediation is welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal mediation request filed 

message: It appears to me that there is consensus in support of the following guideline:
*"Articles about television episodes should only be disambiguated when necessary (i.e., when there is another article on Wikipedia with the same name)."
:I would strongly disagree with this particular guideline because it is inconsistant and confusing having some of the episodes for a particular series named one way, and others named the other way. There would be far less confusion if all articles for a particular series were named the same way.JeffStickney 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What we DO agree on

message: I like the direction the discussion has been heading.  I also think the comments from Thatcher131 were excellent and very relevant to this discussion; I'd strongly recommend reading them and the case he links to (I'd also recommend moving it to the bottom, right now it's lost in the middle of a huge discussion).  We definitely have consensus on the guideline itself, and the debate seems to be about making exceptions, and about whether the guideline should mention them.  I think a possible compromise is saying that exceptions are possible, but make it clear that the bar is set high for them.  I also think it's better to talk about exceptions in general instead of listing examples of them.  I tried to make most of this a reflection of wikipedia guidelines as opposed to setting any new ones.  This is pretty wordy , but I tried to make it as clear and loophole-free as possible.  Any comments would be appreciated, and feel free to use this as a jumping off point for other possible wordings:
As with all Wikipedia guidelines, exceptions may be made, but only if there is consensus to do so.  While "common sense" should be used to make exceptions, individuals may not come to the same "common sense" conclusions; if the community at large can't be convinced that a proposal is "common sense", it may not be.  Keep in mind that consensus is made up of the community at large.  A small group of editors working on articles may come to a decision, but others in the general Wikipedia community may not agree.  Wikipedia pages do not have owners or custodians who control edits to them, and since television articles share the namespace with all other topics, any exceptions can affect the entire encyclopedia.  While it's not mandatory to seek wider comment on making exception to a guideline, it's probably a good idea if you think there may be objections.  A consensus decision to make an exception is not binding, and that exception may be reversed if consensus changes.
If there isn't consensus for making an exception, the guidelines should be followed.
--Milo H Minderbinder 21:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That proposal is just a catch 22 situation. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate?  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Milo, I think that's a very useful statement, and I would support its addition to the guideline page.  I doubt we can get the objectors to agree to it, however.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to request we make it clear that this is not a part of WP:TV-NC itself, but simply the consensus interpretation of WP:POLICY and good advice to follow. This guideline is about naming conventions of articles on television, not Wikipedia policy. Other than that, I completely agree with everything it says and if including it helps end the fighting, I support it. –  Anþony  talk  09:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense.  I'd be very interested in hearing Elonka's opinions about this, since it is (or should be) obvious to her that her continued requests for a new poll are going nowhere.  This looks to me like the sort of opening that someone genuinely interested in compromise should take. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 2 

message: Another requested move of a Lost episode (correction: it's a spongebob squarepants episode).  This time:
: The Sponge Who Could Fly (The Lost Episode) → The Sponge Who Could Fly
See Talk:The Sponge Who Could Fly (The Lost Episode)#Requested move --Serge 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sponge Who Could Fly - requested move 

message: I propose we remove the tag saying the guideline is disputed.  While I acknowledge that there are a couple individuals who don't agree with the current version, I don't think the opposition rises to the level of calling the entire policy into dispute.  I also feel that the tag was not added by consensus, but as the result of stopping a revert war, and now the tag has been used as an argument for not following the policy.  The tag links to Wikipedia:Policy dispute, which says that a guideline should only be declared "disputed" if there's broad consensus to do so.  Based on what that page says, I don't think it's appropriate to leave the tag on this page.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It's being abused and misrepresented and used as a reason for not making moves that still would have been okay even if the exception wording were added.  I say remove it.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be removed immediately since clearly we don't have the broad consensus in support of marking the guideline in dispute that is called for at Wikipedia:Policy dispute.  --Serge 19:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.  There is a dispute, but it is not a broad one, and there is certainly no consensus to describe the guideline as disputed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. About damn time. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is clearly under dispute - we've been through this before.. do not remove the tag, cheers. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Clearly under dispute" is a matter of opinion and interpretation.  The tag says it should only be added if there is consensus for it, and right now I'm just seeing the same two people who have been opposing this all along.  Let me also point out this phrase from Wikipedia:Policy dispute: "All other attempts to declare a policy or guideline in dispute after it became accepted or operational will be considered vandalism or "highly disruptive egregious disruption". --Milo H Minderbinder 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean we could have them blocked? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how much weight that page has (or even the tag itself), but I'd say that two people trying to not just put a disputed tag on an accepted and in-use guideline, but to prevent it from being followed, without a consensus to do so, may be considered disruptive behavior.  And Matthew, instead of reverting and insisting this is "clearly disputed", why don't you show us the consensus supporting that position?  Because, after all, you're not supposed to edit wikipedia guidelines without consensus, right?  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it's already been done, but I support removing the disputed tag. The lines of argument state rather clearly where the state of the consensus are, and does so better than any poll could. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There's one slight problem. The guideline isn't actually in dispute, you just refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with you. Everything you've contributed to this discussion is based on false assumptions and misinterpretation. Everytime this is pointed out you go on to reiterated the same things that had just been demonstrated as incorrect. You've also insisted upon making a new poll rather than recognizing the discussion, which is just plain insulting. The only incivility going on here is your (Elonka's) refusal to listen to anyone else or answer questions directed at you. We need the mediation only so you will listen to what has been said, because everything we've written here has been ignored or taken out of context. At this point it would just be foolish to assume you're doing it by acciedent, which is the only way to assume this action as good faith. Jay32183 01:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The mediation will be rejected now, as both Wknight94 and I have changed to "disagree". -- Ned Scott 05:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it incredibly distasteful to cite the existence of mediation as "evidence" that the guideline is disputed or has no consensus, and thus should not be followed.  As I said in the first post of this section, I acknowledge that there are a couple individuals who do not agree with consensus and have voiced their "dispute" of the policy.  A couple dissenters isn't enough to declare an entire guideline "in dispute".  Not to mention that no article, particularly a guideline, should be edited, much less edit warred over without consensus to make the change.  Elonka, you reverted this three times without making a single comment on the talk page - why do you insist on engaging in disruptive behaviour like that?  I have changed my "agree" on the original mediation to "disagree" based on this display of bad faith (I know it's already dead, but I wanted to go on record).  I don't think there's much hope for Elonka's new mediation attempt either, especially now that she has admitted that she's building up a "stack of diffs" to use as ammo later.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Policy/Guideline tag 

message: Matthew, Elonka, I'd like to point some things out to you:
* We all agree that you cannot use the proper  as the policy's status is not in dispute.
** This forces the use of an unofficial "disputed-use" template.
*** The policy page cannot be forced to use a new or unofficial template just because "two" people want to.
So, you see, to quote Matthew, "it's a catch22". You can't use a real template for various reasons, and the current template is unofficial. Ultimately, neither is needed. This is probably one of the most famous discussions on Wikipedia now. No one reading the guideline needs to be told about it. Gees. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown to M,E 

message: Well, the formal mediation request has not yet been formally rejected, but considering that people are bailing on it, it's not looking hopeful.  So, unless we can figure out how to get formal mediation back on track, I recommend that we try a different technique of dispute resolution, which is an informal "Mediation cabal" process.  No one needs to specifically sign up for this or be an "official participant," you can just dive in and speak your mind (civility, of course, is encouraged).  For anyone who wants to participate, or just watch, please set Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Naming conventions (television) on your watchlists.   
This entire process has turned out to be quite the education on Wikipedia dispute resolution techniques!  I'd still very much like to avoid ArbCom, but if all else fails, it's a last resort. Be warned though that ArbCom is extremely formal, extremely time-consuming (it could take months) and can be very emotionally-draining on all parties. So, I really strongly recommend that we do everything possible to avoid it, and give mediation a good faith effort. --Elonka 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can't keep formal mediation on track, I doubt that informal mediation would be any more successful. I'm disappointed that as a group we weren't patient enough to give the formal mediation a chance. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On this much, Josiah, you and I are in complete agreement.  :/ --Elonka 22:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation update