Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 3

message: There is a new discussion of the naming convention of TV shows at the disambiguation talk page. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki-discussions or standards are never "complete". That being said, if there is an unusual case, bring it up here. -- Netoholic @ 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New perspective

message: A new draft poll is available for comment and revision.  The poll will begin on January 24 and end February 15, 2006.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)/poll|Poll]] now available for Voting

message: Despite the closure of the previous poll, this is still remains a proposed naming convention.  Please do not begin renaming shows until this convention arrives at some sort of consensus.  Many articles have remained at their title for years without dispute, please do not start changing them until discussions are complete. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki-discussions or standards are never "complete". That being said, if there is an unusual case, bring it up here. -- Netoholic @ 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not begin a mass renaming

message: The decision was split, but several people in the poll indicated willingness to side with "TV" just to get consensus and consistency.  -- Netoholic @ 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  A straightforward convention is much preferred to a mix standard, but I don't think we should change just yet.  Give time for other users to express their opinions either way.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree with this. I did vote for "Television", but I would be happy to accept TV as standard. --Lox (t,c) 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like TV (harder to misspell), and it is gratifying to see harmony arising here when the discussion started out with decidedly disparate opinions. Wikipedia is being well served. If "Television" had won, I would be just as happy, because of how the answer was reached. Chris the speller 23:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV vs. television 

message: "TV movie" is the more frequent usage by far. -- Netoholic @ 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite like this as I don't see any reason to disambiguate between a TV film or film. It also avoids the "TV Movie" and "TV Film" debate! --Lox (t,c) 20:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Several sources, including the venerable IMDB, treat TV movies as "TV" rather than "film". Take a look at this entry for Hostile Waters, for example.  We should not decide naming convention based on solving the "TV movie" vs "TV film" question, but rather on common usage.  Television movies are not films.  -- Netoholic @ 21:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many choices about how to disambiguate, do not appeal to authority. Besides, IMDB chooses to automatically disambiguate all movie productions for television by adding "(TV)", though the most common usage is as you say, TV movie.  I would also argue that television movies are films.  The method of release do not change it's status, see Film#Film_venues.  Direct-to-video films are treated under the same convention, as I would imagine movies strictly released over the internet.  The method of release for films outside of the standard Theater-->DVD-->TV is almost always covered in the title sentence of the article, see Hostile Waters (film).  That common usage is not changing, simply the disambiguator. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not mention IMDB to appeal to authority (If I'd said "We must do this because that is how IMDB does it", you might have me).  Instead, I cited it as on source which verifies my assertion that it is most common that the difference between TV movies and films is explicitely shown.  Another such authority, in the U.S., would be the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences which  does not allow films "which, in any version, receive their first public exhibition or distribution in any manner other than as a theatrical motion picture release" to be considered for the Academy Awards.  Likewise, similar television bodies do not consider showings of theatrical releases to be considered for their awards.  There is a divide in the culture between films and television movies, and that should be reflected in naming convention.  I would have no trouble having an Oliver Twist (film) and an Oliver Twist (TV movie).  The distinction is clear. -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are creating a false divide.  There are awards for Commonwealth (Man Booker Prize) and American books (National Book Award), they are both still books, despite having different cultures. It is not needed in the title since it will be mentioned in the title sentence.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 00:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am fine with (film). I agree that television movies are films. Chris the speller 23:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that the proposed guidelines recommend "(film)", the last resort example under "Other methods" should be changed from "(1997 TV movie)" TO "(1997 film)", no? Chris the speller 18:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: First please only change items relevant to the discussion.  You reverted all my changes not just ones related to film.  TV movies are a subset of films and not independent of the category.  Film released under different mediums are treated different, as are many books in terms of awards and categorization. Nonfiction and fiction are still books as are paperbacks and hardcover.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your book analogy is inaccurate and more akin to how we identify films as "action", "romance", etc. -- by the content. The medium is not about paperback vs. hardback -- film vs. TV movie is more akin to print vs. e-book.  Please just cite sources that say that "TV movies are a subset of films" and that list them the same way.  Using poor analogies just leads the discussion astray. I cannot find any source that handles films and TV movies the same. -- Netoholic @ 20:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the book analogy, there are separate awards given for nonfiction and fiction, and books released in paperback and hardcover are treated "differently" by the industry, and yet are still books.  E-books and books share the same content but are presented in different format, but I don't think anyone would contest that a electronic book is not a book even if it is digital.  Just like a DVD version of a film is still a film.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: All non-TV films are postfixed (film). I don't understand why you think TV films are "movies", but non-TV films are not. This would be confusing for readers, it seems to me, to look up title 1 (film) but title 1 (TV movie). The article you cite above, television movie, begins "A television movie (also known as a TV film. . ." and is in the category "Television films". Most TV films that have articles are linked to from lists of films; Alexander: The Other Side of Dawn (a TV film) is included in List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films, for example. Looking in this section, four people have voiced support for using the word "film" to disambiguate, whereas only one wants to use "movie". – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a verifiable source.  Just because our editors added a TV movie to a list of films, or because they created a category named "Television films", does not say anything about how outside sources handle them.  I find several very reputable sources that specifically delineate between TV movies and films (cinema), including every major awards show, IMDB, and several printed reference compendiums.  These sources take great steps to ensure there is no crossover between films and TV movies.  Please just cite some sources which list or treat TV movies the same as films.  Trying to force "film" as the naming convention is wiki-prescription and not based on common usage or clear sources. -- Netoholic @ 19:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a producer creates a visual work of art, intended for the big screen, then afterward shows it on television before (or instead of) releasing it in theaters, what does the viewer care, especially after it's released on DVD? The distinction between putting (film) or (TV movie) after its title on Wikipedia may seem driven by pedantry or industry snobbery at that point. While other sources may primarily be edited by people in the industry who know and care which is which, Wikipedia is open to editing by anyone who can type, and I don't think any editor should try to make the naming conventions so esoteric that only he or she can "correctly" create new articles. Why shouldn't anyone who has the DVD in their player and the packaging in their hand be able to create an article or stub under a title that will be acceptable to all? Chris the speller 19:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Films produced for cinema and then shown on TV, are not TV movies.  Wikipedia is not supposed to be dictating usage -- we use whatever conventions that our primary sources use.  At this point, every major source treats films completely separate and distinct from TV movies.  Using "film" to disambiguate both goes completely against their conventions.  No matter what convention we decide, people will use the wrong names occasionally. -- Netoholic @ 20:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hear your arguments. I think I understand them. I'm just not convinced. And neither, it would appear, is anyone else. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no idea how that comment is supposed to help. -- Netoholic @ 20:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The MPAA is a voluntary ratings board. Originally, it was used for theatrical releases, but expanded when home video retailers wanted to use the system.  The television industry does not get MPAA ratings for TV movies.  Some TV movies have gotten ratings only because they desired it for their home video/DVD release, but this is not universal.  For example, Born Innocent is not rated, yet is on DVD.  Amazon's handling is a complete non sequitor -- their DVD section groups anything that was released on DVD 'media including movies, TV movies, and other TV shows.  Perhaps I need to be clearer... please find a film reference source that handles theatrical films and televisions movies the same way. Perhaps a film encyclopedia?  Every source I've found makes a point to "disambiguate" theatrical films and television movies in their own way - either by leaving out TV movies or clearly marking them as such. -- Netoholic @ 22:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also reviews at rottentomatoes, where TV movies are reviewed by Film critics.  I guess what I and perhaps others don't understand is why you are so unwilling to treat TV movies under the film umbrella simply for the naming convention.  TV movies are different, yes they have a separate articles yes they are different beasts but they are similar enough to be treated as films.  Many of the movies released HBO and the like are of "film" quality.  TV movies will have their own category, specify that they were a TV movie in the title sentence, and be listed at List of TV movies all "clearly marking them as such".  It would be more confusing and contradictory to do it the way you advocate.  Why all the fuss?  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television movies 

message: Cartoon, TV series and animated series are common disambiguators.  I think these should use "TV series" by default and animated series only when disambiguating from other shows.  Cartoon should be depricated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 04:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Animated television series]]

message: TV + "game show" feels extremely redundant, and the way things have srpung naturally, "game show" alone has been preferred.  -- Netoholic @ 22:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Using "(television)" alone as a disambiguator for programming was one option that clearly failed consensus. -- Netoholic @ 23:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *But you cannot claim redundancy for game shows when TV series and TV miniseries are also redundant --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Most radio game shows eventually transferred onto television, and so would be best handled together in one article - "TV game show" would be too limiting in that case.  "Series" and "miniseries" can apply to other media, especially books and comic books. Those titles are more likely to overlap with TV shows, especially shows based off of books.  In that case, the (book) and (TV series) are more likely to be separate articles. -- Netoholic @ 23:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  (game show) is fine.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 04:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: (game show) is a winner. Get it? Chris the speller 00:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game shows 

message: : Episode summaries should be combined onto a single page (List of Knight Rider episodes) or organized as a summary by season (The X-Files (season 1)).
I think that it is generally understood that "season" applies to US series, but other countries (especially the UK) use "series" instead.   — Lee J Haywood 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression was that in the UK , season and series were interchangable when talking about a "year's worth" of episodes. Also, in the UK, that series can mean both the "year's worth" and the entire multi-year run.  I don't want to step into a AE vs BE thing here, just find a way to be consistent without being confusing. -- Netoholic @ 22:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I suspect that it is the case that they are more interchangeable in the US than in the UK given that the use of "season" is a US invention – but having said that I use both and live in the UK.  In the list of television series that include time travel I chose to use "series" due to the need for consistency, since I think it is a more obvious to everyone.  I think that this convention should at least make some mention of the alternative, even if to say not to use it in the extreme case.  Thanks.   — Lee J Haywood 20:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agreed and changed the convention to accomodate your suggestion, but it looks like it was reverted in a larger disagreement.  I will make the change again. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that I think about it, it don't think it should be mentioned, this article is focused on naming conventions for item related to television.  It should only cover how they are named, not the content or other guidelines.  Sorry, --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode articles 

message: Can the example links be modified so that they are not red?  It looks awful. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the technique makes the convention stand out amongst the other text more clearly. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But no other naming convention uses that technique. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I Was Bold. -- Netoholic @ 23:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being bold doesn't mean that it has to be unattractive. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't find it unattractive, but it's many times more clear and useful. -- Netoholic @ 23:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't write them. -- Netoholic @ 00:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other conventions use examples to draw attention.  Do you mind if I change it? --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 04:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links on page 

message: I made some changes (hopefully improvements), moving the commonly used convention items closer to the top and removing some text and providing examples.  I'm sure it can be improved, but I think it's ready to become a guideline and the fun fun process of moving articles can begin.  Any other thoughts? --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's ready. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Giddyup! Chris the speller 01:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please.--Mike Selinker 01:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine here, although id like to see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes mentioned in a see also section or something as its a related guideline. Discordance 03:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ready for guideline? 

message: So, if I wanted to dab an episode name, what should it be?  Foo (Bar episode) or Foo (Bar)?  The page references the latter but makes no mention of the former.  I prefer the former since it's very likely that it may conflict with something else in the TV series: Ensign Ro and Ensign Ro (TNG episode).
I guess I would like to see the former option added as an either/or to Foo (Bar).  If not that then to use Foo (Bar episode) when "Foo" is ambiguous within "Bar". Comments? Cburnett 00:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode naming 

message: As I've gone around renaming shows according to the naming convention, I've notice a few shows that do not necessarily fit into the convention (which may not be a bad thing).  In most of these cases they are shows that appear in different formats which have been adapted from a different medium (radio, manga, play, films, film shorts, novels) to television.  Usually the articles are not long enough to split into two separate articles or should be paired together.  These article often appear in the TV categories, but may not necessarily belong.  I have put these items down for future reference.  For some of the articles like [[Beulah or Dragnet should have the disambiguator (series) after them because they were clearly a series in all formats.  For other shows the division is not so clear.  I'm not yet sure what to do with the shows so I am leaving these for suggestions. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add The Junkies (TV series) to this list - it was a one-episode sitcom, distributed over the internet, and never broadcast on television as far as I am aware. Neither "TV series" or "film" sounds right to me - I originally created it at "sitcom", but that may not be the best title either. Suggestions? — sjorford (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, thanks for creating such an interesting little article, I love wikipedia because so many little thing like that are created!  Do you think (pilot) or (TV pilot) might work better?  The episode was created to attract attention to gain further distribution, either on television or on the internet (through funding).  I generally dislike (sitcom) or (drama) and was part of the reason I advocated the naming convention, but it definitely doesn't fit into its purvue.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "(pilot)" might work. — sjorford (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles about series in different formats 

message: The top level MoS prefers U.S., should we nt follow that here? Rich  Farmbrough 11:35 10  May 2006 (UTC).
: I tend to agree with you. I checked the Talk archives, and couldn't find any discussion on this point, so I say we accept the "upper level" policy, and change this particular example on the conventions page. - The DJ 13:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found policy that dictates differently for disambiguation articles. I therefore reverted the change and added the link to the policy in question. - The DJ 15:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US vs U.S.

message: Don't know if anyone noticed, but there's a discussion over at WP:WSS/P about the naming and organization of television category stubs. Her Pegship 22:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing it out on this page as well. Let's hope more people take notice. I plan to copy the "template structure" for TV stubs to this page later on as well.. TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub types 

message: If I'm going to write an article on a Korean variety show, how would I name it (it's called "X-Man", so I need a descriptor after it)?  It's not exactly a serial, but would X-Man (variety show) work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SKS2K6 (talk • contribs) .
:X-Man (variety show) seems good. There would likely be confusing with X-Man (TV show), so I would go with (variety show) instead. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How do I name this?