This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Gonnym, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((help me)) before the question. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You've convinced me. I reverted my revert :) Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's film-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Film? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's film-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. We also have a number of regional and topical task forces that you may be interested in joining as well. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Erik (talk | contribs) 18:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Gonnym. You have new messages at Talk:Living Dead.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Erik (talk | contribs) 20:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Film! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add ((User WikiProject Film)) to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for July has been published. August's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to see some great film article examples? Head on over to the spotlight department.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of the majority of film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Erik (talk | contribs) 19:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I took a look at your recently created article 6th Empire Awards--The content seems well-organized. However, I think the article seems to contain a few errors the article does not contain in-line citations, and so doesn't follow Wikipedia style guidelines. Jipinghe (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jipinghe, I'm slowly going over the pages and adding in citations. Didn't think I'd have this much work when I started this project :) --Gonnym (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Gonnym. You do not need to add the WikiProject Film banner to the talk pages of redirects. The way we count up articles, it will wrongly classify that redirect as one of the film articles. Can you please remove them? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, i was under the impression that NA quality was meant for redirects. Category:NA-Class film articles has other redirects (Talk:World premiere, Talk:William Munny for just a random example). I don't mind removing them but then whats NA for? --Gonnym (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

based on Armbrust's comments, I have split this into template:Katharine Hepburn and template:Katharine Hepburn filmography. if there is policy against actor filmography templates, per MOS:FILM, then I suppose the second one should be deleted? Frietjes (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Done In 60 Seconds Award is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Done In 60 Seconds Award until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RadioFan (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

film awards
Thank you for quality articles on film and awards, such as 13th Empire Awards and Done In 60 Seconds Award, for creating redirects and categories, for project film maintenance and for appeciation, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1300 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

		Wikiclaus greetings
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikiclaus' Wikipedian good cheer. This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages us all to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing others a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !

Hi, I'd like to let you know that the different media appearances for Roxxon Energy Corporation had been previously sorted by TV, film, and other versions to make it like the other pages. The tie-in comic should've gone under the "other versions" section and the film section would remain in the event that Roxxon appears in any form in the event of any other movies. In addition to your reversion, you also undid my expanding to the Ultimate Marvel section of the page where that part I will work on undoing later. I'm just letting you know my sorting reasons. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rtkat3 I saw your edits, I did not agree with your reasoning, hence why I wanted the discussion, not for you to state this as a fact and move on.

Hello, would love to know what is wrong with the naming of the page for Double Dare. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show) is using a naming style not supported as its using the network (Nickelodeon) name. Per WP:NCTVUS it should use U.S. if there is a version in another country, or the year of debut if there is another US version. --Gonnym (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I think the way the title is is fine (personally) since there is another version of it in the U.S. (Double Dare (CBS game show)), which may need a name change too, but the Nickelodeon version of it is now on it's second revival (OG 86-93, several different version throughout 90's, first revival in 2000, second revival now in 2018), so I'm not entirely sure how basing the name with the debut year would work, unless it just becomes the year it all started, which would be 1986. Magitroopa (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The CBS show is also added to the category. I also noticed that this show has 2 revivals. Part of the reason I decided for a category was to have a list of pages with issues, some of which might need more time to find a solution for. I did not read the article, but from other articles I noticed that sometimes a revival or reboot has no real reason to be in the same article, as besides the theme, name and sometimes channel, it has a lot more not in common. --Gonnym (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

At a fast glance look at the article, it seems like Double Dare is not about any specific series but an overview page for the whole series. I wouldn't call it a franchise as its just in one medium and the same show, but if this was a film, I'd suggest Double Dare (film series). So for me, I'm just missing the correct word to describe this series. --Gonnym (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: They should both be disambiguated by year: Double Dare (1976 game show) (CBS) and Double Dare (1986 game show) (Nickelodeon). Frankly, the naming of the latter article has bothered my for quite a while. (Note: The "by network" redirects would still exist after moves to proper disambiguation, so that should not be a concern...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Should probably also be noted that there were discussions to split the Nickelodeon version into 3 separate articles, 1 for each version (Original, 2000 revival, 2018 revival), though most opposed to the split, especially since they all were the same gameplay style looking at how each of them works, just different revivals. Magitroopa (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That's actually another factor in favor of disambiguating "by year" – if either the 2000 version or the 2018 version get separate articles, they'd need to be at Double Dare (2000 game show) and Double Dare (1988 game show). (And redirects should be created at these titles anyway, even if they aren't split out...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I've added a section on the various versions of The Citadel to my "double-disambiguation" page – here. Technically, only the 1960 UK miniseries needs "double-disambiguation", but... [sigh...] I'm just too tired to push this any further. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on that, the NC was not clear enough on how this should go. I'm waiting for my current proposal to end before bringing a new one to clear some issues that have come up recently with understanding what the NCTV guidelines say. --Gonnym (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I've gone through the various Face to Face entries, and made their article title disambiguations compliant with WP:NCTV. Let me know if you have any thoughts... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks good. My only concern is something that isn't touched upon in the guidelines, but I guess it can be taken from the main guidelines (I think?) - do different types of TV shows make it unnecessary to say what country they are from? I understand WP:CONCISE and that we shouldn't disambiguate more than we need to, but does this really help the reader? Face to Face (talk show) could seem to a reader that doesn't know of WP:NCTV that it could be one of the TV program shows (this is related to my issue with double disambiguation - when we don't have the country in it, it makes it really hard to know if this is the article we want). --Gonnym (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I argue that it does make it unnecessary, but there may be others who don't agree. If you're concerned, simply create a redirect with the "by country" disambig. as well – problem solved! Also, I'm a fan of hatnotes, if there's any doubt. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, do you intend to follow up on the BB Australia "season" RM discussion, and propose a "mass move" of all of the other misnamed Australian "season" articles?... Just curious. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The short answer is no. The long answer is that I tried many times fixing something on Wikipedia just to get it dragged on and on by pointless arguing. Even fixing Big Brother articles is a task I don't really see ending. I just fix the pages I'm currently going over and really have the will power to see it through. Also, I have no idea how to not-manually find all Australian articles and nominate them. --Gonnym (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Gonnym! You made some edits to Highway 2 (Israel). Among the was this edit to the Interchange list, in effect gutting the entire section. In your edit summary, you wrote: "... There are no sources ... he.wikipedia has different km markers... entire section is not really correct." In most if not all highway articles, the implicit reference would be a published map such as those published by Hagstrom, Google Earth, or in the case of Israel, Israel Road Atlas published by Mapa. I have rarely seen a reference given but if the term "implicit" bothers you, feel free to include such a reference.

At the same time, you removed the 'Meaning' column. It was long ago decided that this column was an important because of the multi-language nature of the list. In your effort to make the list look just like U.S. highway lists, you eliminated information. I personally am not a fan of the one-size fits all approach. Some accommodation needs to be made for different circumstances. For example, articles about roads in Italy or roads in China have differing criteria.

As for the inconsistency in km markers with those in he.wiki, that's an easy fix. That southern section included in he.wiki is the portion of the road (officially numbered Route 2 as can be seen on 'govmap.gov.il') within the city of Tel Aviv. It needs to be added. Also, since not every exit is an interchange (especially in the case of the boulevard section in Tel Aviv), the list can simply be renamed 'Junction list'. This is the case with many articles about numbered roads in Israel.

There are things that need to be fixed. However, before changing the entire format, I respectfully request that the matter be discussed. In the meantime, I have reverted the edit. I look forward to discussing the matter with you. Kind regards, @Efrat (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Atefrat, I actually did ask on how to fix it over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Seeking advice and help (as the latest edit on this article was done 8 months ago), was told that that the table needs a good cleaning/overhaul and was referred to a Manual of Style on this exact issue over at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists. In this specific case, I think your preferred style is not supported nor by WikiProject Highways but more importantly, not be the MoS guideline. I'm not sure what other articles did and how they reached it (and it's not that relevant if they are not following the MoS either as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot ignore a MoS and also WP:Other stuff exists which hopefully other editors will get to fix those issues. What I know is that my edit complies with MOS:RJL, complies with MOS:ACCESS (both guidelines), cleans up misguided Hebrew-to-English translations and other smaller issues that the current one has. There was no reason for the revert, also none that you actually gave besides saying you wanted the "meaning" column back in. Was that the only issue you had? If that was it, then reverting a whole section was really done in bad faith. --Gonnym (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Gonnym! I am here for only another few moments. I hope you will give me a day or two to continue the discussion before further action.@Efrat (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, there is no rush on anything. As a side note, I'm not sure if you are Israeli or not, but from your recent edits I guess you are. Unlike the he.wiki site, this one (and since you are from 2011 here I'm sure you know it) requires a reference for every detail you add. Names, distance, meanings, these are all things that can, and should be referenced. And when it can't, it either needs to be removed or at the bare minimum, acknowledged that there is no source for that information. --Gonnym (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, its been 3 days now. I'll wait until tomorrow for you, then add back the improvements. For future reverts, don't revert and disappear as that makes for no possible conversation. If you don't have time to talk about it, then don't do any action either. --Gonnym (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Greetings,Gonnym! Sorry for the delay. I have not been ignoring you. I am traveling and have no smart phone, no laptop, extremely limited access to the internet. Call me old fashioned, but I still speak to friends and family via land line telephones! I should be back on the net by tomorrow, Tuesday at the latest. For consistency, your edit would require altering changes to thousands of road articles, not just about Israel's roads but articles of roads across the globe to make them all conform to the look of US Interstate highway articles. Please give me a chance to continue the conversation once I am back home. I thank you for your continued patience. Gotta run. Kind regards, @Efrat (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, Gonnym! My major concern with your complete overhaul of the Junction List is that you tried to make it look exactly like US Interstate articles. MOS:RJL states: "Generally, the following columns should appear..." It does not say the list should be exactly that way nor does it preclude additional information that is decided upon by the local community. It was decided long ago to place certain information in the list (before I began editing Wikipedia). I have no problem adding a "Notes" column nor using certain colors denotning junction construction, partial access, etc.

Please understand that many officially numbered national roads in Israel are not built to US Interstate standards. Many are, in some sections, local roads with traffic lights, traffic circles and even stop signs. Particularly, Highway 2 includes an southern section within the city of Tel Aviv which is not a limited access highway at all (and, by the way, should be added to the Junction list). Nevertheless, it carries the designation "2" which makes it a national road which effects jurisdiction, repair, maintenance, etc. Your edit summary claimed; "There are no sources attached to the information". Unlike US DOT, official information from the Israel Ministry of Transport is not always accessible to the general public. However, the coordinates on linked article pages form an implicit reference. It gives access to many map sources including the official govmap.gov.il showing configuration of the highway, distances, names of destinations, etc. As for your concerns about MOS:ACCESS, I leave it to more experienced editors to make the article conform without eliminating information in the process. Kind regards, @Efrat (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sadly I need to repeat what I said before, as you are just rehashing your arguments.

• MOS:RJL is a guideline on exactly these kind of tables, while this article's has local editing rules.
• A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot change a guideline.
• Making the list look like the US ones (and not just it) is the goal of any good Manual of Style - each country is not different. Slight modifications are ok; Huge changes are not.
• You taking the words out of context to fit your agenda: Generally, the following columns should appear from left to right in the following order: does not mean that "you can use these columns, but you could also not use them, whatever suits your needs" - it means that these columns should be used, unless a specific reason not to. For example "State subdivision", this column is not relevent in Israel, so this coulmn can be skipped. The "mi" column is also not relevant to Israel as KM is used instead. However, if we really wanted, we could still add that column in to give a better understanding for people who use mi as written in the guideline: For lists in some geographic areas, other terminology may be used in accordance with alternate distance-measuring systems. The preferred practice is to use both columns with one measurement system as the primary distance, but some situations may require only one column..
• The southern half of Highway 2 should have minimum effect on the table.
• Removing tags (in this case the unsourced tag) without actually adding sources, just because you don't like it, could lead to sanctions against you. I'd advise you not do it anymore. Every piece of information you add to wikipedia needs a source. If you can't find it, that's ok. But be warned that anything not sourced is allowed to be removed.
• govemap.gov.il does not give distances, you need to calculate the distance yourself, making this unreliable as someone might measure it a little bit different.

Anything else or have we covered all the non-issues? --Gonnym (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Re this edit summary, I assumed you were replying to me rather than DGG, as you seemed to be discussing my comments and not his. Apologies if I was mistaken. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I hate Wikipedia's 1990 infrastructure. It's really not possible to reply to someone not directly above you and make the conversation look visually good, so I just always indent my entry, no matter to whom I'm replying to. --Gonnym (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Ha, true. Thanks for answering! —67.14.236.193 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gonnym I was wondering if you would like to work together in regards to the whole Big Brother article name fiasco? I was thinking it would be better if we worked together instead of working independently because it seems we keep clashing with each other. Thank you for helping with getting these fixed. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, atm I'm just reviewing them all to see what the issues are and how to fix them. You can see my progress at User:Gonnym/sandboxBigBrother. I've got a few more still go do. --Gonnym (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: are you part of the Big Brother Wikiproject? --Gonnym (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was the first Wikiproject I joined when I started editing Wikipedia. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I've gone over most of the articles so far and there should be around 400-450 total articles associated with it, most of which, have no sources at all. What exactly does that project do? --Gonnym (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Its supposed to improve and standardize all Big Brother articles however it was created in the early years of Wikiprojects and became inactive around 2009. For a while there was really no oversight on a lot of articles and the only articles that received decent attention were related to the four main English editions. The project really never evolved with the times and has some outdated guidelines that conflict with current guidelines. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym I went ahead and made Big Brother (French TV series) a disambig page for now. There shouldn't have been an article there in the first place. I also added references to Loft Story (French TV series) that support that the format was a French version of Big Brother. If you would like we could use the talk page of your sandbox for Big Brother related discussions to keep everything in one place without using our own talk pages. Would that be a good idea? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, np working on the sandbox page. --Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Gonnym. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.@Efrat (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Is your main problem with the "season" articles for this one that the word is capitalized – e.g. "(Season 1)" – or is there another issue besides that? Because if it's just the capitalization issue, that's easy to fix! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You were correct. I'm not even entering the world of pain that is semi "English" titles. --Gonnym (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: BTW, the Argentinian articles I added were regarding the "TV show", however I checked now List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations because of your comment there and "Argentine" is not listed there as an option. --Gonnym (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that may be a problem, but that's a separate issue that may require a mass-move request (or an update to List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations?...), as most Argentinian TV series seem to be at "Argentine" right now. That can be worried about later. For now, I would not add anything to the category for now just because it uses "Argentine". P.S. Yeah, I figured out about the "TV show" business, and fixed that one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I have untangled the mess of TV show articles with the title Prime Time/Primetime – take a look at Prime time (disambiguation). I've put in some requests to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks to finish fixing this mess, so hopefully this will be resolved soon.

Unfortunately, there are still some big messes to untangle – there's still messes involving TV shows titled Spotlight and The Saturday Show, I have no idea what to do about the three BBC Look North TV shows, and we're going to need to do a large "mass move" for all of the TV shows named Deal or No Deal (disambiguation)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Good job on all those!

• Deal or No Deal - I was looking at the Deal or No Deal situation. My concern is not that we'd get pushback from the disambiguation, but from people saying they should be name changed to their local version.
• Regional UK news shows - I think we have two questions here which we should probably ask the community -

1. Are regional British BBC news shows notable? Local US news program such as or WNEP-TV#News_operation or News4Jax (which were shown in a segments on Last Week Tonight), don't get articles, then why do the BBC ones do? I think either the BBC ones have local bias or a presumed notability inheritance (since they are "BBC" branded).
2. Should NCTV should accept local sub-divisions? So we'd get "Spotlight (Northen Ireland TV program)" and "Spotlight (South West England TV Program)", but then we'd also allow "<some shared name US local news> (Jaxsonville, Florida TV program)".
3. The Saturday Show (Radio Sweden) -> The Saturday Show (Swedish radio program), The Saturday Show (Amazing Radio) -> is already Amazing Radio, The Saturday Show (ITV TV series) -> The Saturday Show (1982 UK TV program), The Saturday Show (BBC TV series) -> The Saturday Show (2001 UK TV program), The Saturday Show (TSW TV series) -> not an article, and was renamed to "Freeze Frame" anyways, The Saturday Show (Australian TV series) -> series or program, not sure what this show is, The Saturday Show (Channel 5 TV series) -> The Saturday Show (2015 UK TV series) or program or talkshow, not sure what this is. --Gonnym (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

On #1, it really depends on extent of secondary coverage – if these local shows have received significant coverage, they can stay. This is definitely a problem with a number of the "mis-named" articles though – a good percentage of them simply need to be deleted (e.g. Bring Me Sunshine (1994)), and it's possible these BBC regional shows are the same (or that they need to be merged into a single article, a la News Hour (Canadian TV program)). I've been putting off doing this, because deletion is a far bigger hassle to undertake than even WP:RMs... On #2, I'd flat-out oppose allowing for "sub-national" disambiguation – maybe in a very extreme case or two, but certainly not as part of the guideline... On #3?... I'll worry about it later! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that #2 shouldn't be what we want, but for some reason it seems like in this specific area, British bias is very noticeable. I highly doubt that -any- regional news program gets significant coverage as A) it's a news program, they usually do not get any coverage and B) it's a regional show which might get regional coverage at best, or in cases where someone did something stupid, then maybe bigger coverage (like in the case of Last Week Tonight). --Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to point out, the reason they use code names in the comic naming convention is because you can have multiple people with the same name in the same comic series. That's why you use codenames, because there are several Green Lanterns, more than one Red Skull, etc. People share monikers in the comics. That is very rare on a TV show, which is why it is different. The point is that, naming conventions are based on precision and common usage. Arrow is more common than "Arrowverse" when talking about characters from Arrow, just like Flash, Legends, Supergirl would be more common to use for those characters. Precision would focus on what is more precise to say? John is a character on Arrow, or in the Arrowverse? The Arrowverse isn't an actual show. It isn't a place. It's a term merely used to describe the existence of one universe of shows that are connected to each other. When people discuss Oliver Queen, John Diggle, Thea, Laurel, etc. they refer to them as characters on Arrow. When they discuss Barry Allen, Harrison Wells, Killer Frost, it's through The Flash. So forth and so on. They do discuss the shows (all of them) from the focus of the "Arrowverse", but when discussing specific people they are tied to their actual shows. Using "Arrowverse" is about services fans over average readers, which is not what we should be doing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is where I disagree with you on two points - the first is your assumption that a title "x (y)" means to you what it means to someone else. Why would "John Diggle (Arrow)" mean the TV show appearance and not the vigilante character? Nowhere in that title does it say "Hey, this is a TV article", so only once you are inside, you understand what that is. That means, the title is ambiguous. I agree with you that the Arrowverse isn't a show, my point is that it just does not matter. "Star Trek" is the name of only one entry in that franchise, yet that name is used for all characters. So a character from DP9 will use Star Trek, eventhough he never appeared on that show so that doesn't go with Precision. Also, John is not (only) a character on Arrow, he's a character in that whole franchise of shows. He shows up there, they talk about him, stuff happening in one show (Flashpoint) have effects on him. Your "The Flash" example is also great that you brought up as that is an even worse disambiguation. That can mean the 1990 TV show or the comics or the upcoming film. What about Wally West from Flash or Damien Darhk and Sara Lance that you neglected to mention in your Arrow list. Those characters starred in two different Arrowverse shows (Darhk was the main evil in seasons of both). Calling Sara Lance Arrow and not Legends of Tomorrow would be a very bad decision as she is much more known for the latter, yet she originated in the former. Also, as I've stated in the move discussion, Laurel, Leonard Snart and Malcolm Merlyn have signed contracts that make them have a franchise starring role, which means they star in all TV shows. My main argument is, that you (and some others who used the same arguments) are fine for some shows to be exempt, finding very technical reasons (which do not hold up IMO) why they are exempt, but are against Arrowverse, which to me really seems that the only reason you are against it, is just simply because you do not like that name. --Gonnym (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This is because we write from a historical perspective, not recentism. Historically, Sara was a character on Arrow, she later became a star on "Legends". You don't ignore her origin simply because of later events. It's also a fallacy to say "John is a character on The Flash". He is not. He's a character on "Arrow". He's merely guest starred on The Flash. That's a big difference from being a character on that show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't bring a WP:RECENT argument to this discussion as that's really just grasping at straws. We are talking about a one-season (~year) difference, not something that was for 30 years a member of "group A" and just last year changed to be a member of "group B". Sara Lance was basically in season 2 and a bit in season 4, both in a non-starring role, compared to her starring and lead role in Legends which she moved to during Arrow's season 4. So the "undue" weight, if you want to go in that direction, is to call her character an "Arrow" character. This is true for other characters which don't have an article (which some should have, but since they have a comic-based article no one bothered yet) - Hawkman and Hawkgirl, Firestorm, Leonard Snart, Mick Rory - all characters that debuted on The Flash with very minor parts, but are in starring roles in Legends, and this is true for the 3 main villains I listed above. Then when you head into the area of consistency and leave argument questions such as "where did he debut" or "where does he show up more" and just accept "Arrowverse" as the most WP:PRECISE disambiguation word - as yes, Joe West is a "The Flash" character and he barely even had screen time in any crossover event, but there is no reason to disimbiguate him (if needed) any different than the other characters who are very much intertwined in all series. Also, as stated before, "Arrowverse" in itself is an accepted Wikipedia term to describe this franchise as seen in Arrowverse, List of Arrowverse cast members, Template:Arrowverse and Category:Arrowverse. --Gonnym (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

But wait, if Sara isn't an official character on "Arrow", because it wasn't a starring roles, then how can Diggle be a character on "The Flash". I mean, Sara certainly has had more screen time in season 2 and 4 of "Arrow" (hell, in season 2 alone) than Diggle on any other show combined. Diggle has appeared as a guest 7 times, mostly on the Flash (5 of the 7 being specifically to crossovers). Out of 140 appearances, 7 is hardly statistically significant (it's barely 5% of his appearances). He's a character on "Arrow". "Arrowverse" as being where he is from is not precise, it's inaccurate. He's not FROM "Arrowverse", he's FROM "Arrow". That's how he should be titled. Your argument is entirely predicated on the idea that the "Arrowverse" is a thing, and not simply a unified name. "Arrow" is a thing. You can watch "Arrow". You can buy "Arrow". You cannot watch "Arrowverse". You can watch "The Flash", and "Legends", and "Supergirl", but those are individual shows. "Arrowverse" is a concept, it's a thing that a character originates or resides in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I never said Sara isn't an official character on Arrow, I said, that by your logic of naming a character by TV series debut, you name a character by a recurring role she had for 1 and a bit season, rather then by the 4 seasons where she was not only starring, but the lead character. With my logic, this whole debate is irreverent, they are all from the Arrowverse franchise, regardless of TV series and role. I also disagree with your conclusion as I think that it's just semantics. You say "you cannot watch "Arrowverse"", but I (and RS, such as forbes) do say that. Also, if we adopt that logic, then I'll take us again back to my argument about Star Wars, Star Trek and MCU articles, as like you say, you cannot watch "Star Wars" as that is literally, the 1977 film, and you cannot watch "Star Trek", as that is the first series only. TV watchers and fans of Star Trek, never called the series "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine", but "Deep Space Nine" and similar for Voyager. However, you've OK'ed these articles in previous arguments, yet your recent argument cannot exclude these. --Gonnym (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Oliver Queen (Arrow), regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, AutumnKing (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I've just noticed that a number of ESPN shows are probably improperly disambiguated – the list can be found in ((ESPN1)) and ((ESPN2)). I've just moved two of them to "correct" NCTV titles: SportsNation (TV series) and First Take (TV series). But I'm noticing several others currently disambiguated with "TV series", and a good number of those have got to be improperly disambiguated under WP:NCTV... Just letting you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It may be sports TV shows in general – I just moved a few more of these, titled, variously, On the Ball, World of Sport, and Grandstand (TV series). But a lot of the articles on TV sports shows appear to be mis-disambiguated... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Its not surprising. I think the biggest offenders we have are sport shows, news programs and reality shows. --Gonnym (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to ask your opinion on something... Would you call Miljoenenjacht the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on this?... I'm trying to figure out whether I can just boldly move Miljoenenjacht (Belgium), or whether I'm going to have to do a WP:RM on both based on WP:NOPRIMARY. Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Miljoenenjacht seems to be the primary regardless of the page-views, as I get from the article that it was the original version. A few additional observations - Miljoenenjacht full name is Postcode Loterij Miljoenenjacht; Miljoenenjacht (Belgium) article says it changed name to Te Nemen Of Te Laten (different article) - not sure if that means it's a different format, or if the show really just changed names (as Deal or no Deal is a bit different to Miljoenenjacht according to Miljoenenjacht and Deal or No Deal (Netherlands)). --Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll go ahead and move just Miljoenenjacht (Belgium), then. As for Te Nemen Of Te Laten, it looks like it should simply be deleted or converted to a redirect (probably the latter) – I'm not sure if there's even enough content there to merge... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done – moved to Miljoenenjacht (Belgian game show), and Te Nemen Of Te Laten has been merged and converted into a redirect. Note that I also have serious reservations about Deal or No Deal (Netherlands) as a standalone article – I'm wondering if that one should just be merged into Miljoenenjacht and converted into a redirect too... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I personally hate barely-stub articles without any sources that are abandoned and aren't likely to be expended anytime soon. As such, the Deal or No Deal can easily be merged into Miljoenenjacht with its own section and whenever someone later decides to expend the article that won't be a problem. This will give it much more context. --Gonnym (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

You became victim of a troll. Некрасов = Nekrasov. [1] 77.180.113.177 (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I purposely didn't tag Aangan (ARY Digital series) and Aangan (Hum TV series) under Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style yesterday for a very good reason – both TV series are Pakastani, and both premiered, or are to premiere, in 2018! IOW, I think "disambiguation by TV network" is the only option here (as per my earlier Foreign Exchange WP:RM). Based on that, Aangan (Hum TV series), at least, is currently "correctly named" (provided it does actually premiere this year). I don't know about Aangan (ARY Digital series) – I can't tell if that's actually the name of a TV network or not... But, bottom line: these two should not be Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style (and least, not yet...) – they could maybe go in Category:Television articles with disputed naming style. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the network option is the right one even if that's the case. I'd rather go with genre or even maybe country+network, as just network says to outsiders absolutely nothing, heck, you didn't even know if the network was its actual name :) (which it is ARY Digital). So in my opinion both names are wrong (also, I doubt the Hum one will be released in 2019, its not even listed on the official site). --Gonnym (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

If the Hum TV series isn't released until 2019, then we can revisit. (Though, even in that eventuality, "by year" disambiguation would be less than ideal, as the series would only be one year apart... Still, with hatnotes, that might be good enough.) But if they both air the same year, then "by network disambiguation" would be the best option here – there is no provision for "country+network" disambiguation (that option has literally never been discussed before); and I personally hate "by genre" disambig., and I doubt that would work here either, as I expect both series are "dramas"/"soap operas"... In any case, i stand by what I said – these two should be under Category:Television articles with disputed naming style, not Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style, at least for now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Deprecated means there is no provision for network either, just pointing that out. --Gonnym (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm, you've got a point – if the Foreign Exchange RM passes, then we'll need to update the wording of NCTV again. Or, at least, have a discussion about what to do on this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've basically given up on changing the guideline. It's too much of hassle and it just never happens and then you still need to argue for a guideline in any discussion against someone else arguing for something not based on guideline. I understand why we are moving a lot of these TV shows / Big Brother / Next Model via RM so we can establish we have a consensus and prevent edit wars, but that's a pretty stupid reason, as we already should have had the consensus by the fact that the guideline itself is the consensus. Also, I've noticed from my month+ watching RM that it really does not matter what the guideline says (or actually, how you misrepresent what it says), as the admins just do a headcount on most issues anyways. --Gonnym (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

And, in a few cases, they sometimes miscount... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've (hopefully) changed the proposal to the one you suggested. Just though you'd like to know. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 03:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit Yeah I was able to modify it. The bot took care of updating WP:RM to reflect the new name so everything should be okay. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 03:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Junipero/archive2. I think I've addressed all your points—are there any more issues with the article, or are you happy to support the nomination? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You didn't get a response to your question about searching, but maybe WP:VPT would be the place to ask.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out! --Gonnym (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Flip (TV Show). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gonnym, re: this edit, what's the deal with all the &nbsp; additions? Was that on purpose? Seems a little odd to refactor all those comments for no clear reason, but if I'm not aware of the rationale, please educate me. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea how that even happened. All I did was change the tag like I wrote in my edit summary. That is very strange! --Gonnym (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Strange. Do you have a browser extension that may have done that? Did you use visual editor? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope for both. I've also never had that error happen in my edits so far. Very strange. --Gonnym (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll take it to WP:VPT. Looks like your reversion didn't remove the formatting, so that's weird x2. Have a good one! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The New Year's Eve Live (CNN program) and the NFL GameDay (NFL Network show) RM's – do you think there's any point in advertising these at WT:NCTV? Or should I just leave it?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm biased and to be frank, I'd advertise them if I see more people oppose as I want those gone. But I'm sure people will say it helps, but if that helps, then what is the difference between those two and any other show? Why did "The Gifted" move not become "The Gifted (FX show)"? Or "The Office (UK remake)"? Either debut year and different names are good or are not good, specific shows shouldn't matter. This whole attitude that Wikipedia editors have that "guidelines are not policy and don't need to be followed" just amazes me each time. /rant over :) --Gonnym (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll advertise, if nobody else !votes over the next few days. But, yeah – the oppose votes on these two are beyond the pale, esp. the New Year's Eve Live (CNN program) one. !!!!

I've just moved Sugar Rush (U.S. TV series) to Sugar Rush (2005 TV series), though I'm calling it a "program" in the lede. I literally can't tell what this show was because the article is too "stub-y", and there is literally no sourcing out there covering this show. (Yes, it should actually be deleted in all probability, but that's a lot more hassle...) Anyway, just letting you know, as I wouldn't object to somebody else moving it to Sugar Rush (2005 TV program) as it's really not clear what this show was... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, no idea tbh...only thing I could find is this. --Gonnym (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that (though it is definitely WP:PRIMARY, so it contributes nothing to subject notability...) Based on the episode synopses, it probably is a "TV program", as each episode seems to be the host doing something "new". It doesn't seem to have any of the "continuing competition" elements of other reality shows that make them "TV series". But I'm not going to move it again, at least not for now... [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell if this one should be disambiguated by "game show" or "TV program". If I was doing the UK original, I would definitely say "game show" as that one is described as a "panel game". But the Australian one is never really described that way, and seems to focus more on "discussion"(?...), based on the article's sourcing. So I'm leaning towards You Have Been Watching (Australian TV program), but I thought I'd get your thoughts first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

From these ([2], [3], [4]) videos from some episodes of the show, it does not look like a game show. I'm not quite sure what panel game is, but that article gives an example Hollywood Squares. This does not look anything like that. It looks more like the panel segment of Real Time with Bill Maher, just instead of news and a close table, it's videos from TV shows and the guests doesn't sit as close. --Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

So, probably "TV program" over "talk show", then?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd say TV program is the path of less resistance (no idea how to categorize this really) :) --Gonnym (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

OK – I'll start by moving it there, with no prejudice against somebody else moving it to "talk show"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I can see that you are very interested in horror films and I was wondering if you would like to review an article I nominated for GA: Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes. Thanks for your consideration!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

If I remove the contentious sources, will you be satisfied? Or you can show me how to cite the minutes and seconds of the documentary.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

The problem with the sources is that they can't be really verified. Even if I have the book right near me, as I'm not a machine, there is a chance that while searching for what you mean I'll miss it. Even if it were an ebook I still might miss it, as if it is a paraphrase what will I search for? The documentary citeation is really easy to work with - ((cite AV media |people=<director> |date=<date of the release of the doc> |title=<title of the video> |medium=DVD (if this was a bonus material on a DVD release) |url=<if available legally online> |access-date=<the date you saw it> |time=33:44 ))

• Using "|time=" will write it in the reference as "Event occurs at 33:44"
• Using "|minutes=33:44" will write it in the reference as "33:44 minutes in"

Both are good, just pick the one you like more. Make sure that each citation uses a different timestamp as you've used this doc quite a few times. --Gonnym (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering whether the WP:TPE user right would be useful to you, as you seem to meet the criteria for granting? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea, Gonnym... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I match the criteria, as I don't have #5 and #6. I'll have to think about this. --Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely WP:AfD'able, especially if no sourcing can be found for it. If you find anything to verify that it even aired, let me know. If I think of it, I'll try to take a look on my end. But, from that, I can't even tell what country it aired in! It pretty much looks like a clear case for WP:NUKEIT, so if no sourcing can be found, away to WP:AfD I'll send it! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Only things I could find are [5], [6], [7], [8]. But I couldn't even find it on IMDB or even any videos online. --Gonnym (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is so sparse, that I can barely tell what it is. But considering there were multiple episodes, and no source seems to call it a "serial", "TV series" seem to be the best choice here(?...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems this is a TV serial - official BBC site [9], a book talking about it [10], [11]. --Gonnym (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I hope you like the program.    — The Transhumanist   13:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: I do, it's great. One question though - I'm using intitle: "(word)" but it ignores the parenthesis. Any idea why? --Gonnym (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. But, I will add it to the top of the program's bugs list, and will do my best to figure it out.    — The Transhumanist   14:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It works for me. Looking at your example above more closely, it appears that there is a space after the colon following "intitle". That means that the string following the space is a separate search parameter, treated normally. If you take out the space, your intitle search works as expected in SearchSuite, with SearchSuite stripping out the results that do not match.    — The Transhumanist   10:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Case-sensitivity?

@The Transhumanist: is it possible to enable search with for different cap styles? For instance, searching for "TV Series" and not getting "TV series" results? --Gonnym (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Though the program currently only accepts "intitle:" at the beginning of the search, I think. I'll have to check. The "TrueMatch" feature definitely needs some refinement.    — The Transhumanist   00:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: currently when I search intitle: "(TV Series)" I get results for "TV series" as well (lower-case "s"). Is there a setting I need to enable to get only results for "Series" with an upper-case "S"? --Gonnym (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed For some reason, I had made it case insensitive, which on retrospect, seems pretty silly for a feature called "TrueMatch". Perhaps, at the time, I didn't know what the "i" modifier at the end meant (I did a lot of copying/pasting code when I built the program). This time though, I spotted it right away, and removed it. The script works as you requested, though you may have to up the search results to 5,000 when searching for "TV Series". To do that, click on "50" down where it says "View". Then in the URL, change limit=50 to limit=5000, and press ↵ Enter.

It will take a bit more programming to provide a menu item to turn case-sensitivity for intitle searches on/off, but I'll start working on it. Thanks for the suggestion!

Note that the highest setting, via the URL, is 5,000 (for non-admins), and that Wikipedia's search feature only shows up to the 10,000th result. You get an error message after that. SearchSuite is a filter that modifies Wikipedia's search results, so that the number shown is less than what WP returned. So for "TV Series", there are only 3 matches in the first 5,000 results, so it shows 3 even though the View indicates 5,000. What's happening is that MediaWiki doesn't honor "intitle", and returns results where the search term isn't in the title. Keep in mind that SearchSuite isn't a direct search engine; it just modifies or filters the results returned by MediaWiki. In other words, for intitle searches, it searches the search results.

I hope all that made sense.

Keep the requests coming, and I'll do my best to accommodate. What else would you like SearchSuite to be able to do?    — The Transhumanist   10:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: I'm still getting "TV series" results. Do I need to enable TrueMatch somehow? --Gonnym (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't notice your answer right away, and further edited my answers above. So, you might want to reread them.    — The Transhumanist   10:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Concerning your question, since I just made the fix, you may still be accessing the old code from your cache. So, you need to clear your cache. I went to the program page and did a purge just now, in case it is the server cache, but I don't know if that is user-specific (I don't see why it would be). After clearing your cache, try the search again, and let me know if it works. (Keeping my fingers crossed).    — The Transhumanist   10:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: "TrueMatch" is a built-in function, though somebody else requested that it be put on a switch like the rest of the features. That may be tricky, since it only applies to intitle searches, and people may be confused why it wouldn't do anything to regular searches. I'll need to think about it more.    — The Transhumanist   10:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: Cleared my cache several times, got rid of anything related to Wikipedia or Wikimedia and even logged in on a different browser, but still not working for me. And yeah, toggle options are always good. --Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

There should be no space between "intitle:" and "TV Series", like this intitle:"TV Series" If you have an intervening space, it will treat the search string as a normal entry.    — The Transhumanist   11:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist:: Amazing, that was the issue. It also fixed the previous issue I had. Thanks :) --Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

issue

@The Transhumanist: I was trying to search for intitle:"( show)" but I'm not getting results (and I know there are a few). Am I doing something wrong? --Gonnym (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that SearchString.js isn't a search engine. It just works on the results returned by Wikipedia search, which has some limitations. First, WP search doesn't do exact matches, even when you provide quotes. Second, the maximum number of results returned is 11,000. What SearchSuite.js does is refines the search results provided, such as strips out non-matches. 20 results are displayed at a time. If it strips out all the entries because they are non-matches, the results will appear blank, but if there were more than 20, there will be the View line beneath it: "View (previous 20 | next 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)". You can click through all entries (to 11,000 max) using those links, or you could click on 50, then change &limit=50 to &limit=5000 in the url in your browser's address input box, and press enter to view 5000 at a time (that's the maximum viewing amount for non-admins). I hope these tips help.    — The Transhumanist   21:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist: Yes, I know all that...I get 7,245 results. None show up, yet Good Morning!!! (Australian show), Good Morning (New Zealand show) and Good Morning (Russian show) exist. Another issue is that when I search with show redirects on, it shows them for a second and then vanishes as if I was searching with off (just to be clear, I've tested this with both on and off, same results). --Gonnym (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Be careful what you put inside the quotes, because that will match exactly. SearchSuite.js is looking for an opening parens followed by a space, followed by show, followed by a closing parens. Drop the opening parens. Try intitle:" show)"    — The Transhumanist   22:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew I was doing something wrong with the search. Do you know if wild cards work here? --Gonnym (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

See H:WLD.    — The Transhumanist   01:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the flashed results, those are the WP search results that SearchSuite.js modifies. SearchSuite.js doesn't generate any search results, it just edits the ones you normally get. ;)    — The Transhumanist   22:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, if you feel strongly about it (and you did tag one with Category:Television articles with disputed naming style), I think you should open a WP:RM on Maan (serial) and Maan (TV series). One option would be moves to Maan (Indian TV series) and Maan (Pakistani TV series), respectively... The weird thing here is that there is actually no sourcing provided calling the current Maan (serial) a "serial", whereas the current Maan (TV series) actually does have sourcing calling it a "serial"!... Anyway, I think a WP:RM is needed here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I've tagged serials in Pakistani context for 2 reasons; The first being that I don't believe that they use serial in the same way British television does. I've posted on the Pakistani WikiProject to see what they say about this, but haven't received any response yet. If they use this for any drama or even for a 1 season only show, they should use "TV series", as the NCTV does not give an option for "Limited series" in the US version. Television show#Miniseries, limited series, and event series says Fargo (TV series) was a Limited Series and actually won the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Limited Series, but we still call it "TV series". So this main issue is one that we should find a clear answer before moving on. The second reason was that almost all (or all) British "serial" mentions are named "TV serial" anyways (as the NCTV is just bad here). As that word means other things as well, it was worth tagging. --Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That last point is a separate issue – i.e. whether it should be "TV serial" and "TV miniseries". I'd actually support that, but that's a discussion that needs to be held in NCTV. In the meantime, NCTV is quite clear that just "serial" is currently the correct disambiguator, so use of "(serial)" can't be considered "disputed" on that basis. It can only be considered "disputed" if the term is applied to a TV series that is not a "serial". As lots and lots of Pakistani and Indian English-language sources do refer to these single-season 15–50-episode series as "serials", that pretty much justifies used of the term as per WP:V. Whether the Indian-/Pakistani-use of the term varies from the British meaning really doesn't matter IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, I disagree with you here. It doesn't matter what they call it as the disambiguation is never under the commonname policy, as it's not part of the title but part of an inter-system disambiguation style. If country x starts calling their TV series "Dogs" you wouldn't start using that as a disambiguator. This is also the same rational we used for America's Next Top Model articles. Sources do refer to them as "cycles" but so what? That is not a style we support. And again, we don't call american TV series "Limited series" so why do other countries get to have a different style? --Gonnym (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a separate issue – some of us would like to "deprecate" use of "serial" and "miniseries", for that very reason (i.e. What is a "miniseries"? What is a "serial"?... no question that just using "TV series" in all cases would be "cleaner"/clearer...), but that's not the current guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Back to the Maan proposal – any objection to the moves I proposed above? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think my issue is connected to the miniseries/serial issue. Those describe a short season, usually 1 season only. This describes a long and sometimes very long season, seems to be 1 season only. Again, US or UK limited series do not get called "Limited Series". Just because a word is written in the guideline, doesn't mean it can be used out of its context, which is in the case of "serial" a miniseries format, not a limited series format. I don't think I have any issue with your proposal, I might have issues later if and when I get a response from any Pakistani editor. --Gonnym (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done: Talk:Maan (serial)#Requested move 14 September 2018. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Is the problem with The Time of Your Life (Playhouse 90) and the other two is that it is missing the word "episode" and should be at The Time of Your Life (Playhouse 90 episode)? (I think this is what NCTV says.)... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Except now I'm doubting that, as if I'm reading NCTV correctly, The Time of Your Life (Playhouse 90) is actually correct(?...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if they are stand-alone teleplays or really episodes of something. But if they are episodes then I guess that's fine. --Gonnym (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Both the disambiguation description The Time of Your Life (Playhouse 90), a television adaptation of the William Saroyan play and the leading sentence in the article The Time of Your Life is a 1958 live television version of William Saroyan's play starring Jackie Gleason, directed by Tom Donovan, and adapted by A. J. Russell made it sound like they are each independent and shown in a "move hour" style program. --Gonnym (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Playhouse 90 was like that, sort of, from what I know. But each of these would still qualify as an "episode" of that show, so I think those three are correctly named under WP:NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I see, so the problem lies with how the sentences i quoted refereed to it (or lack of). --Gonnym (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with PTV News (TV program)? That one seems perfectly correct to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing, just some late night mistake of mine --Gonnym (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Got any suggestions where to move this one?! When I looked at it before, I admit I couldn't even tell what title it should be put at... If I can't figure that out, I'll have to send it through a WP:RM, I guess. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The sources that I saw and the image in the article call this "Patlabor: The Mobile Police" --Gonnym (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

That was the confusion – that title seems to apply to the whole franchise! Or, at least, it's not clear... Will probably need to do a WP:RM on this one, one of these days... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, didn't notice that. Yeah, that will probably need a RM if we both don't know what to do with that. --Gonnym (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I was just stopping by to see if any other work was done on Big Brother related articles and saw this. That's the correct name for that show the franchise article is located at Patlabor. I would recommend reaching out to WP:A&M before requesting a RM on this one since their MOS is a Wikipedia guideline and does incorporate WP:NCTV so there is most likely a reason why this article has this title. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 19:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

There are 5 sources listed in that article, none of them call it "Patlabor: The TV Series" yet 4 of them call it "Patlabor: The Mobile Police", including the poster in the article. I wouldn't be surprised if the anime was also incorrectly titled. --Gonnym (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I literally can't "fix" this problem! These articles are a mess (this seems common with the anime articles...), and there's no simple way to untangle the mess. It's either going to involve merging the content of List of Ojamajo Doremi (1999) episodes to List of Ojamajo Doremi episodes (which would be my suggested solution), or it's going to involve a whole big WP:RM solution. But, regardless, I can't "fix" this one on my own... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I originally tagged it because of the "1999", then noticed the bigger issue. The anime and reality projects are so intimidating that no experienced editor wants to handle their "guideline" messes. --Gonnym (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Would you agree with me that Nature (TV series) and Nova (TV series) should both be at Nature (TV program) and Nova (TV program)?... These are two more than I'm toying with the idea of WP:RMing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. As long as the NCTV keeps the distinction between different types of "TV" then these are a program. Nature has in the lead Nature is a wildlife television program produced and It is a weekly one-hour program that consists of documentaries about various animals and ecosystems., while Nova has The Nova programs have been praised for their good pacing. Nova has also been nominated for Emmys in the documentary category. Just seems fitting. (I'd personally would have never created the NCTV guideline of splitting these up and just called them all "TV series" or "TV program", but c'est la vie). --Gonnym (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I like the distinction (words should be used with the proper meanings, even if RS's often don't...), but if we are going to do it, we need to do it right, and shows like these two and Cops, etc. need to be at "TV program"... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW, do you happen to know how many pages you've fixed so far? From the numbers of the pages I've added to the category I think you've must have fixed over 200 article names. --Gonnym (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I have not kept a count. I also haven't kept a count of how many I've sent through WP:RM. (Somebody, I think it was Enterprisey was working on a "RM stats counter", a la AfD stats, but I don't think they ever got it working to my satisfaction...) Anyway, I'd bet it's upwards of 200 so far, yeah. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Found it! – RM stats. Still isn't working right, though – it lists about my most recent 2 weeks of RM discussions, but that's it. With your name, it goes back about a month (which is better than mine!!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: OK, a different approach. Do you know if there is a way to search the edit history of a user? If that is possible, I can check how many articles I've tagged with Hotcat and then search for the ones I manually added (hopefully I used a common word/phrase). --Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If you're asking what I think you're asking, you go to your contributions page, and at the bottom one of the options is "Edit summary search" – with that, you should be able to search for "Hotcat" (or whatever)... Now, what I don't know is whether that gives you a "count" of how many pages the search returns – I don't think it does, so you might have to count them "manually". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Strange, I don't have an "Edit summary search" box. Maybe that is a gadget? --Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ahhh, it is a link! --Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

So around ~980 articles have been added. Wow, much more fixed than 200! --Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't even think they mean "documentary" here – from the article, it sounds like this is what you would call a "docudrama", not a "documentary"... Anyway, I'll get to these articles eventually – and these two I'll probably send through a WP:RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a feeling you are correct. --Gonnym (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at the two College GameDay articles, and I'm not sure you're going to like my "solution". (I'll send it through an WP:RM, so everyone will have chance to chime in...) But I think we're stuck here, and if we do it the way I'm thinking (going with WP:RECOGNIZABILITY over other factors), it will provide a way forward on other troublesome cases like this, such as The Footy Show and Friday Night Football. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You are such a tease. I'm waiting 2 days and NOTHING! :) --Gonnym (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It's going to take me a while, as I don't like doing complicated or "controversial" RM's until I have some time. But the gist is that I've concluded that disambiguating by sport is actually the most WP:RECOGNIZABLE option in this case, and in the case of a few others. Now, that argument may get rejected at the RM, but I'm thinking it's actually the best option for a few of these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that could work. So The Footy Show (Australian Football League TV program) and The Footy Show (Australian Rugby League TV program)? --Gonnym (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly – for College GameDay, I'm thinking something along the lines of College GameDay (football TV program)... For other two, I'll have to look more closely at complications, but I'd want something simpler – e.g. The Footy Show (Australian football TV program) and The Footy Show (Australian rugby TV program) (if "by country" is necessary here, which it might be...), per WP:CONCISE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: OK, so I've put in the requested move for these two – we'll see how it goes. If it works, and doesn't get derailed, I'll be able to move some of these other ones on the same basis... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we agree that this article should be moved back to Macbeth (1954 film)? Obviously, we can't move it to Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) as the 1960 version of the same prevents that, and Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame 1954) is just not right under WP:NCTV. I gather you are doing some testing there, so I will hold off on moving it until I get the go-ahead from you... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the rollback there Gonnym, and for all the pings—incl. this one  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the title name! I was addressing an issue someone reported so was testing it there. Yeah that name is wrong, but I still have a problem with "film". I have no idea why some issues get dozens of TV editors involved, and others almost none. I'm sure that if we would have made it a formal addition to NCTV then everyone would have join in../sigh. Anyways, here are a few more for you to ponder:

• Episode 1 (Ashes to Ashes series 1) and Episode 2 (Ashes to Ashes series 1)
• Alo (Skins series 5) vs Alo (Skins series 6) (and in general List of Skins episodes)
• Coronation Street Live (2000 episode) vs Coronation Street Live (2010 episode)

--Gonnym (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

TV films can certainly be disambiguated by "film" even under NCTV, so in the case of this one, I think "1954 film", where the article was previous to 2016, is the best option. Also, "Hallmark Hall of Fame" is complicated – I would not consider that a "TV series" in any case. Yes, it's a "series of movies", but it doesn't operate on a regular schedule and is more of a "branding artifact" than an actual "TV program". So I think that's the best option here, along with having Macbeth (Hallmark Hall of Fame) point to the disambig. page. (P.S. Are you done with the testing at this article?...) As for these others... Ugh!... I think I'm likely to tackle some of the misnamed anime "season" articles before trying to tackle these ones! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with television films being called "films", but "a live television adaptation" sounds like a TV play and not a film to me, which is the issue I raised at the NC page. For me that would be either "TV play" or "TV program", but never "film". --Gonnym (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm going to let the Love from a Stranger WP:RMs play out first, then, before tackling this one with a WP:RM... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: so, what know? --Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, this is one of the ones I've given up on, because there's absolutely no consensus on what to do. If people refuse to move it back to Macbeth (1954 film) where it was before, I still think Macbeth (1954 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode) is the best option (along with moving the other one to Macbeth (1960 Hallmark Hall of Fame episode)). But if I'm the only one in favor of that, I'm not going to open a WP:RM on it... 20:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed your "The Aftermath" episode examples – that's two more that I'd move to something like The Aftermath (1985 Dynasty episode) and The Aftermath (1987 Dynasty episode)... This one might be worth doing a WP:RM on, to see if there's any support for naming episodes like that in these situations (except that I'm guessing you can't do RM's on redirects... maybe I should just boldly move these two). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer if we somehow got a naming convention at NCTV to deal with all these. No point in fighting these over at RM as then its just a wild-west situation. Your options while consise, are still pretty ambigious which is my problem with them, as it doesn't address the problem with the series name being used by two different TV series. --Gonnym (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a ((ping)) for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Alex Shih (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gonnym (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Now that Cops (TV program) has been moved, it's probably time to revisit whether this one should be moved to C.O.P.S. I'm actually neutral on the proposition, and don't intent to do a WP:RM on it myself, or even to vote in one, but I think there's enough past support for the proposition that you may want to do a WP:RM on the idea.

And, while we're on the subject, I'd prefer not to instigate the WP:RM on Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show) & Double Dare (CBS game show) (don't ask...) (though I will vote in that one), so that's another one that you should feel free to do a WP:RM on, if you think the time is right. (And, note: We've already established a precedent for this move with Think Fast (1989 game show)/Think Fast (1949 game show)...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take a look at those this week. BTW, A Collection of Goodies (Special Tax Edition) - what do you think the style should be: A Collection of Goodies (Special Tax Edition) / A Collection of Goodies: Special Tax Edition / A Collection of Goodies - Special Tax Edition? --Gonnym (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you'd need to look at contemporary sources, as see how they "spelled" it. I'm at a loss as to what the "correct form" of that is... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

So, do we know what the "adjective" is here – would it be "Ghanan TV program"? (Though By The Fire Side (Ghana TV Program) is totally unsourced, and I would be tempted to WP:PROD it if it hadn't been created in the last month...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Per List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations it's Ghanaian. And that article could easily go either Prod, or if you feel colonist, then at the very least to draft space to slowly die for 1 year before being deleted. It has no sources, it has no info, it's not even a stub. --Gonnym (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

So, it looks like El Reencuentro 2011 (Spain) and Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2011 are not only totally misnamed – it looks like they are pretty much exact duplicates of each other!!... It would appear that the best course of action here is to "merge" Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2011 into El Reencuentro 2011 (Spain) (converting the former into a redirect), and then figure out the correct naming scheme for El Reencuentro (reality TV show), El Reencuentro 2010 (Spain) and El Reencuentro 2011 (Spain)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

According to Alucard 16 over here User_talk:Gonnym/sandboxBigBrother#Gran_Hermano_(Spanish_TV_series), it should be Gran Hermano Spain (All Stars). Also, there was an article I sent for deletion a while back which ended up being converted to a redirect. It might have even been this article. Ah, it was actually the 3rd all stars article. That's what happens when the Big Brother group don't follow any of wikipedia guideline on writing articles - including naming or even sourcing, just throw in the same cut-and-paste data from the previous page and move on. --Gonnym (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear on this – Are you saying El Reencuentro 2011 (Spain) should be at Gran Hermano Spain (All Stars)? Or just that Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2011/El Reencuentro 2011 (Spain) should be at Gran Hermano Spain (All Stars)?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Well that goes to show that I shouldn't answer when I'm sleep depraved. For some reason I thought the years were different. Yes, the articles you said should be merged. --Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like it's even worse/more complicated that that! See, it looks like to me that Gran Hermano Spain (All Stars) and El Reencuentro 2010 (Spain) may also be the same thing, which means it's another case of "duplicate articles" in need of merging... Suffice it to say that this is a mess, and I won't be able to do anything until I have some time to look carefully at all of this, and figure out what's going on. I may also need to ask Alucard 16 for help figuring it all out... --IJBall (contribs • talk)

Yeah, it seems the same idiot it creating the articles without even checking before. These articles were created after my survey since they aren't tagged with the project banner. --Gonnym (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

OK it's even worse. He does know of those articles as his edit history shows he's edited them. So he apparently just didn't care that his creating the article again. I wouldn't be surprised if he even copy/pasted it from there. --Gonnym (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Annnd validated that it's the same exact text. Left him a message on his talk page, but these should be deleted. The names are probably better than the current ones, but there is no reason to duplicate the articles instead of moving them. --Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, if that's the case, they qualify for deletion under WP:A10. I've followed up to your post on that user's Talk page, but if they don't do what I suggested, we should get these deleted under WP:A10... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, as far as I can tell, El Reencuentro (reality TV show) does not appear to be a copy-and-paste creation of another article. But, if I'm wrong, please point me in the direction of the article it was copied from... But, if it's not a copy, I guess it should be moved... (but... to what? maybe Gran Hermano Spain (All Stars) needs to be moved to another title as well?...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That looks like a series page for the VIP spin off, there are a few other languages that have that, so that's ok. At least for now, we'll need to see with Alucard what he says. --Gonnym (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't even know of these :/ I have Wednesday and Thursday off work I'll research the Spanish All-Stars edition and see what's going on here with this one. This is a hot mess! ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've redirected El Reencuentro 2010 (Spain) to Gran Hermano Spain (All Stars), as the former is effectively a duplicate of the latter, and it appears the latter is the one named correctly.

However, I cannot figure out what to do with El Reencuentro 2011 (Spain) vs. Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2011. Again, they look like duplicates of each other. Of the two, El Reencuentro 2011 (Spain) is the one that is the more correctly named (though it can actually be moved to simply El Reencuentro 2011) – that season was not called "Gran Hermano" anything, so I think that Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2011 is probably not the right title... Now, which "version" should be used?... I have no idea – I think Alucard 16 will probably have to figure that out, and the solution may be to WP:HISTMERGE Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2011 into El Reencuentro 2011 (Spain), followed by a page move of the latter to El Reencuentro 2011.

And, finally, I still don't know what to do with El Reencuentro (reality TV show) – maybe we just move it, possibly to El Reencuentro (franchise)? Or more likely El Reencuentro (Spanish TV series)? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

IJBall and Gonnym Sorry I had some unexpected issues with my Xbox One not working and have been on phone support troubleshooting. Ok from my quick research and looking at Spanish Wikipedia as well El Reencuentro (reality TV show) is Spain's version of Big Brother All Stars format as it involves the contestants living in the Big Brother house for a period of time with the aim of wining a cash prize. Based on what quick information I have found so far and based on WP:NCTV guidelines I believe the titles should be as follows:

Overall I think the proposed moves can be made without an WP:RM as they wouldn't be controversial and clearly follows no guidelines (not even the incorrect/outdated WP:BIGBRO guidelines which is wayyy bad). These articles do need to be brought in line with WP:NCTV for the time being. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC) ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Folks I also found another incorrect title Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2 which leads to more confusion because of the current wonderful names above. Upon research the correct name for this season is Gran Hermano 12+1: La Re-vuelta and is a one time spin-off of their thirteenth season in where the eliminated contestants were invited to go back into the House for a second chance at a grand prize. I couldn't find a source at this time linking it to the El Reencuentro series. I even checked Spanish Wikipedia as it seems to have more reliable sources on this matter than we do here at en~Wiki and it doesn't have a source linking this season to El Reencuentro which makes it a one time spin-off. For now I moved Gran Hermano (Spain) All Stars 2 to Gran Hermano: La Re-vuelta to match its Spanish Wikipedia title and in the lead removed the WP:OR and sourced the correct title with a Spanish reliable source. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Except for El Reencuentro (reality TV show) needing to be moved to El Reencuentro (TV series), rather than El Reencuentro (TV show), your table of suggestions looks pretty good to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Cool I highly doubt this would be a controversial merge and this doesn't even follow the outdated WP:BIGBRO guidelines let alone WP:NCTV guidelines I'm just gonna be WP:BOLD with this one and move them to align with WP:NCTV. We have bigger fish to fry with WP:RM. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done El Reencuentro (TV series) and season articles now follows WP:NCTV and I redirected El Reencuentro (TV show) to parent article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to glance at the various Deal or No Deal articles. Before I even start any RM's on these, I think what I'm going to do first is convert any of these with entirely no sourcing to redirects back to Deal or No Deal. That may be as many as half of them, so that should cut down on the eventual WP:RM proposal. The rest look to have very paltry sourcing, but I'll just go ahead and propose moving any that have any kind of sourcing at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Converting to a redirect? You are a brave man IJBall :) --Gonnym (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

OTOH, I'm thinking about what you've said about RM, and may be sitting on the sidelines for a while. I've seen far too many spurious, ridiculous "!votes" lately, and I'm getting really tired of it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I started this year thinking that in any discussion a vote would be counted if it's grounded in any sensible logic or with guidelines or policy behind it, but noticed that in the majority of cases, admins and non-admins just care about the numbers, regardless of substance of argument. There are also some editors from our project that have mastered the practice of non-opposing opposing, which in that case, you really have nothing to counter with. --Gonnym (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done! Most of the problematic Deal or No Deal articles have been converted to redirects, and the four "valid" ones are at WP:RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Trato Hecho

So, it turns out all four Trato Hecho articles are also unsourced as well, so I'll eventually convert those to redirects too. It's funny – but out of the dozen+ problematic Deal or No Deal and related articles, it looks like only four of them were worth keeping. (And there are other DoND-related articles, that are under foreign names so aren't in Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style, that are similarly unsourced, and should probably be converted to redirects as well...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Trato Hecho articles have been converted to redirects. However, there are still a lot of foreign Deal or No Deal-related articles that are completely without inline sourcing that should likely share the same fate (e.g. El Familión Nestlé, Dil kam No Dil, Davam Ya Tamam, etc.). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You are already aware of StarDance 9 (Czech Republic), as you tagged it, but it looks like all of the "season" articles for this show are misnamed... Any chance you can work your magic, and determine if this series showed, for example, "StarDance 9" on their title card screen, or just "StarDance" for every season? Because, if it's the latter, they should all simply be moved to StarDance (season 9), etc. TIA! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

A few things I found. season 1 official site, season 2 offical site, season 3 official site, season 4 official site, season 5 official site, season 6 official site, season 9 official site (can't find 7 and 8) - notice that only 2 and 3 have numbers in the logo on the site. A promo for 2015 (season 7 probably) does not show a number. This article from this year does not mention the number, only the shows name. A video made by the sponsoer of the 7th season does not use a number. In the video description they write "7th annual StarDance competition". Seems that at best, we have no common standared, and in this case, it can easily use the Wikipedia house style of (season x). --Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed – if two of them use "numbers" in the name, but 5 of them do not, it should default to a standard pf "StarDance (season x)". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna ping @IJBall: here because we may need his page mover expertise but I have come up with an uncontroversial solution to fix both the English & French Canadian Big Brothers. Let me know what you both think.

• Move the English language version from Big Brother (Canadian TV series) back to its official title Big Brother Canada which would align its naming structure with its respective seasons. (i.e. Big Brother Canada (season 1)) which are acceptable in accordance to WP:NCTV.
• Move the French language version from Big Brother (Quebec TV series) to Big Brother (Canadian TV series) since it was simply known as Big Brother and just aired in the French Canadian region. This would elimiate the incorrect disambig tag "Quebec" and bring this article in line with WP:NCTV.
• Add hatnotes to the top of both the English and French Canadian articles. For example on the French Canadian article we can put This page is about the French language adaptation of the series. For English language adaptation, see Big Brother Canada.

So what do you guys think? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to this – I'll try to remember to get to this in the next 24 hours. For the last one: moving Big Brother (Quebec TV series) → Big Brother (Canadian TV series), we're probably going to have to go through WP:RM/TR, as it will likely involve needing to overwrite that redirect upon moving. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that distinction is a real distinction though. Big Brother (Canadian TV series) can easily be Big Brother Canada... --Gonnym (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It's real enough here, IMO – Big Brother Canada is the WP:NATURALDIS title, and the title card for the show does indicate that that is the acutal title of the show. With the hatnotes that Alucard 16 is also suggesting, this should be good enough. Worst-case scenario is that somebody challenges this in a WP:RM. But Alucard 16's suggestion is a significant improvement over the current situation IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: The first part of this is  Done. Big Brother Canada was moved only very recently, and should not have been moved to the new title as per WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:NATURALDIS, so I have reverted that move back to the "stable" title of Big Brother Canada. The second part of this – the "Quebec" part – I have put up at WP:RM/TR, and I have asked that if this request is thought to be in any way "controversial" that they forward the Quebec proposal to WP:RM, where we can hash it out there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: OK, the Quebec one has been contested, which means it'll go to WP:RM. That means we'd better come up with a solid alternate title suggestion. If the Quebec version can be moved to Big Brother Canada (season 7) or something like that, we should probably suggest moving to that title at the WP:RM... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: We can't do Big Brother Canada (season 7) the Quebec version came before the English Canadian version and they are totally separate from each other. Plus we would have more issues on our hands when the English Canadian version actually gets to season seven. For this edition then I would suggest moving it to Big Brother (2010 Canadian TV series) which should work while keeping Big Brother (Canadian TV series) redirecting to Big Brother Canada. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: Move discussion now at Talk:Big Brother (Quebec TV series)#Requested move 3 November 2018. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, did you know that ((Big Brother sidebar)) doesn't automatically italicize the article title like ((Infobox television)) does!?! As a "template editor master", do you think you can fix this? Or is ((Big Brother sidebar)) one of those infoboxes you're looking to merge/consolidate?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I have some stats about the usages of the more-than-one pesudo-"infobox" templates used by the Big Brother project (there are 3, and several articles even use manual code in the articles to create their own version). Those templates also don't show up on mobile as they are navboxes and not infoboxes and they also collapse most of their info which is against guidelines and also don't have all the fields that the regular television ones do have. I raised this issue in the TV project 2 months ago or so, and no one even responded. I've tried over a year ago to get all reality seasons together in one infobox, but one nice editor did his best to block it. To answer your question, I'm currently working on the episode ones, if that goes well then I'll try again on the season one, but if no one will respond again, it will again be me and the other editor and the conclusion is already known. --Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Not if you publicize the discussion elsewhere – say WT:TV... --IJBall (contribs • talk)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_27#Series_and_season_articles_using_non_MOS_"infobox"_templates, you were saying (just to correct myself, one responded)? --Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm aware of the issue now, so I'd likely comment this time. Also, if I'm reading that correctly, it looks as if that adamstom97 was actually in favor of just merging them to the regular infoboxes – So where did you get pushback from actually fixing these?... Also, the mobile issue to me seems significant – I've got to think that there would be editors out there who would care about that, though I couldn't tell you which "project" you'd find those editors in. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The editor that guards the television infoboxes...As a merge would probably require adding params that Big Brother do need and are valid, such as hosts and conestatnts (I could see arguments also for number of days in the house and winner, which will make it more in-line with Template:Infobox reality talent competition, which should also be merged). To be honest this can be done either with a straight merge or with maybe using a module which will reduce the "clutter" in the regular infobox page. --Gonnym (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, if that's who I think it is, I can see why it might be a problem... The other pathway, then, I guess would be through WP:TfD – you might run into the same problem, but if you can get enough knowledgeable eyes on the issue, I've got to think it'll go your way... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

We might need Andy for this as he is truly THE mater when it comes to consolidating infoboxes. If you want to move this along (and agree with his proposal) don't forgot to voice your opinion here - Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_27#Template:Infobox_The_Goodies_episode. --Gonnym (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, now I'd better not, as it'll look like a "WP:CANVAS"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

That's ok. It will pass, just might be extended for another 7 days. --Gonnym (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

To kinda give some insight here on how these Big Brother infoboxes came into existence (from my perspective):

• Template:Big Brother housemates and Template:Big Brother endgame from what I can tell were created before my time these used to be created via code on each article but templates were created to eliminate the code in each article. This was in the early days of en~Wiki. TBH I really don't see the need since the voting history/nomination history tables convey the same information except that these are easy quick view at top of the articles. I personally always thought that a more standard infobox should be used here.
• As for Template:Big Brother sidebar I can see the point with this one. Big Brother is a bit unique when compared to other reality shows in that in most cases it airs in real time and with live Internet feeds because of this most broadcasters have multiple spin-off shows that air concurrently with each season with multiple hosts. Trying to use Template:Infobox television and put all necessary information (like all current hosts) it would look confusing. With the customized sidebar its easier to separate the information out based on the correct show airing that year to avoid confusion. The only part of the sidebar I don't understand is the collapsible part which lists all the contestants that ever took part. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak to the former, but it really seems to me that the latter at least needs to converted into a standard "infobox", if nothing else. That would seem to eliminate some of the other problems with it that you've outlined... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I want to ask your advice before I move this one. The article is unsourced, so that's a problem (and I couldn't find any sources after a quick search)... But my question is this – do you think I should move this to:

1. Good Morning!!! (Australian TV program)
2. Good Morning (Australian TV program)
3. Good Morning with Rosemary!!! or
4. Good Morning with Rosemary

The show actually seems to have been titled some version of Good Morning with Rosemary (even IMDb has it that way), so it seems to me it should probably be moved to one of the last two. The other issue is the "!!!", which I can't verify as being in the title, so I think they should be dropped. So Option #4 looks the best to me... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

So this calls the show "Good Morning With Rosemary", while this and this call the show "Good Morning!". Couldn't find a mention of "Breakfast-a-Go-Go" as the name of the show. --Gonnym (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Sydney Morning Herald is a much higher quality source, so I think that cinches it – Option #4 it is!... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

And this just got weird! – I was about to do a two step-move, first moving the article to Good Morning!!! (Australian TV program), before finally moving it to Good Morning with Rosemary, but Good Morning!!! (Australian TV program) is on the title "blacklist"!?!... Clearly, I'm going to have to ask about this, but first I'm going to have to figure out which Admin(s) are knowledgeable about the title blacklist first, so I know who to ask. [sigh...] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems that obscure 60s local TV program ended up with more user rights for you :) --Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Heh. And,  Done! Galobtter got the second-stage of the move. And I've now added that SMH source to the article. So I think the Good Morning suite of articles have all been fixed now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

So, I can move Made in Denmark Season 2 to correct disambiguation. Or I can merge it, and all related articles, back to Made in Denmark. In this case, I'm much more inclined to do the latter...Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm with you here. As the reality articles have gotten out of hand. While I do agree that eventually every season of a notable show deserves it's own article (also easier for categorization and links), these articles aren't even trying to be good. They just copy/paste the same layout, fill in the bare participant data, unreferenced, and go on to create more. So, yes, I'm with you. --Gonnym (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I've actually had this thought for most of the bare bones Big Brother articles since this whole naming convention mess started. Gonnym can vouch I've already merged a few lol. My thought is if they don't have sources, the article is very bare bones and the parent is very small the a merge is the best option. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly why I intend to do with the Deal or No Deal international articles – any that have no sourcing at all I'm going to be converting into redirects. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a courtesy to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Dimas gilang persistent disruptive editing. AussieLegend (✉) 06:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm posting this one here instead of the usual place because I think we really need IJBall's eyes here as I'm not sure what to do as far as guidelines go.

Big Brother Angola & Mozambique is in fact the third season of Big Brother Angola the broadcaster DStv changed the name pre-season from Big Brother Angola to Big Brother Angola e Moçambique because they decided make it a joint season between the two countries where they share the same language. In this press release about the new joint edition they note the first and second editions aired in 2014 and 2015 (which were the Angolan versions) see the "Sobre o Big Brother Angola Moçambique" section of the press release which explains where they consider how this season fits in with Big Brother Angola.

The press also states this was the thrid season as well but includes contestants from Mozambique. [12][13][14] After the season premiered it dropped Angola e Moçambique from its name and was known by its title card and logo as Big Brother Xtremo but commonly its also known as Big Brother Angola e Moçambique. Its official Twitter account has both the logo which omits the countries as part of the name but in the description includes them.[15] The broadcaster also posted clips on YouTube which are still available that has the title card of the show.[16] The only way to see the official website for this show for any season is to use the Wayback Machine. In this article about why the Nigerian series was filmed in South Africa the broadcaster stated the name for the joint Angola/Mozambique season was Big Brother Xtremo.[17].

So I'm not entirely sure what to do here. All three seasons had a specific subtitle which was used in their opening title and logo. Season one was "Tesouro", season two was "Duplo Impacto" and season three was "Xtremo" which leads me to think that this edition should follow the Survivor (U.S. TV series) naming convention. (For reference I found and uploaded their title cards from their opening titles for the first two seasons and added them to their articles.) However what throws a wrench into this was seasons one and two also had "Angola" in the name while the third had no countries officially in its name. So I'm at a loss what to do here with what I've found so far and the way I'm understanding the information. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest taking this through a WP:RM. Just pick the naming scheme you think is "most" correct, apply it to all three editions, and then carefully craft your RM proposal. I think what no matter where these three season articles end up, it's going to involve the creation of a number of additional redirects to cover all of the "name variations" this show, and its "seasons", seemed to go through... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: That's the thing I'm not sure what to go with. I know the current name for the third season isn't acceptable but there isn't a better solution. A stretch here as far as an WP:RM goes is proposing the following:

• Big Brother Angola (season 1) → Big Brother: Tesouro
• Big Brother Angola (season 2) → Big Brother: Duplo Impacto
• Big Brother Angola & Mozambique → Big Brother: Xtremo

I could use Survivor (U.S. TV series) as the example since each season has a subtitle in their title card. This would be the stretch though but to get the first two seasons to match the third I could use DStv's own press release where they called the second season " Big Brother Duplo Impacto" dropping "Angola" from the title as the reason for not including "Angola" in the name for the first two seasons since the naming convention has to be consistent from my understanding. This way we can leave the name of the parent season alone but include a note in the article about the name change for the third season. Do you think this idea would have a chance of success? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you should go with your gut, and go with the Big Brother: Tesouro, etc. solution – it's not perfect, but it's better than what we've got. But, as I said – this is still going to involve a number of redirects for the various alt. titles on the side... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I actually think that it's important for the project as a whole to keep the region name in the title. So for me I think Big Brother Angola: Tesouro/Duplo Impacto and for season 3...I think we have all bad options, but maybe the less bad is "Big Brother Angola & Mozambique: Xtremo" and noting in the lead that it is a continuation of Big Brother Angola. --Gonnym (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well crud I already submitted a lengthy RM that can be found here. Maybe you could suggest that as an alternate option Gonnym? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Re this edit, or more specifically your edit summary, if you look at Aiman (TV program) you'll see that when he created the article he included some fields that aren't in the infobox like format, maintheme, imdb_id and tv_com_id. format, imdb_id and tv_com_id were removed from the infobox a long time ago but I don't remember maintheme ever being part of it. He's obviously using an offline version of what he believes the infobox should be and I don't think anything we do will stop him improperly formatting or doing any of the stupid things that he does, short of a block. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe also, but I was trying to figure out how he got it to look like that and the visual editor (which he uses) has the option for the template editor (if i'm not mistaken), so I had a feeling he might be using that. It did add up seeing that the format field was indeed incorrectly set. If he doesn't get blocked before his next article, we'll see if it was indeed that. --Gonnym (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: - Seems my hunch was right Buletin Indonesia which he created today is correctly formatted. At least that issue is fixed. --Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Or not. I just noticed you already fixed it. --Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

And he's still creating improperly formatted infoboxes, but he's now expanded that to BLPs as well. I wish an admin would get off his arse and do something. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Amazing how little * he gives! At least it might be over now. --Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Need a second opinion: Do you suggest moving this to Startalk (Philippine TV program) or Startalk (Philippine talk show)?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I would say it's a TV program. This and this are talk show, while this is a game show. It seems this is more a variety show. Maybe something similar to The Ellen DeGeneres Show but with game segments. So maybe like a cross-bred between a morning show and a game show? Anyways, since we both can't be 100% sure, TV program is the safer bet. --Gonnym (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So, do we have any ideas yet on what to do about the naming of the various Survivor Israel articles?! You keep finding more of them to rename, but I don't have any clue what to do with them, even for the purposes of a WP:RM proposal... Pinging Alucard 16 to this discussion as well.

Well, Survivor was called just that, Survivor, not Survivor Israel, Survivor 10 or some other name. I see the first season logo does say Survivor 10, but I'm pretty sure that the host always used just "Survivor" (he.wiki does not use Survivor 10 and sources from the first season here and here don't either). So the naming style for the show itself is easy here, Survivor (Israeli TV series). However, the seasons (for all different language survivor shows) need to be "Survivor: subtitle (Country season)" or "Survivor: subtitle" which will be ambiguous, even if there isn't another season for another country there. --Gonnym (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

So, it sounds like this will need a "multiple" RM request – who is going to handle it (I'd say "not me", as I'm not as well-versed on this topic as you two are!), and when should be launch it?... --IJBall (contribs • talk)

Well, Alucard 16 and I are still working on Big Brother, but we are nearing its completion. I can handle the research into what it requires when we're done there. If we're on the subject, would appreciate your opinion on these articles: List of Big Brother (U.S. TV series) houseguests and List of Big Brother 1 houseguests (U.S.), List of Big Brother 2 houseguests (U.S.), etc. --Gonnym (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Ugh... The "base" article, List of Big Brother (U.S. TV series) houseguests is fine as is. I'm not sure what the others should be moved to, though. As we haven't challenged the Big Brother 1 (U.S.) naming convention yet, I think they should go at List of Big Brother 1 (U.S.) houseguests, etc., for WP:CONSISTENCY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I deliberately didn't say what I wanted you to check so you'd be impartial, but I was actually thinking of maybe nominating all season x housemates articles for deletion based on the FL article that already has it. It seems silly to me that we barely even allow a list of characters article for scripted TV series, but for reality, each person gets 10 lines of prose, each season gets a separate article and the whole series gets a base article that does what every season does, just better. --Gonnym (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about other reality shows but these lists (if I remember correctly) were spun out of their parent season article as a compromise years ago because articles were getting to be WP:TOOBIG and editors kept either adding them back in or expanding them with unnecessary info. In general most of the contestants fail WP:GNG to have their own article. IMO I don't think that the articles are needed nor should those sections look like this for articles that lack a separate contestant list. I think that for reality shows a table showing the contestant info (like name, age, hometown, etc.) is all that is needed.

We don't need to recap what each individual did during that show and what shows they did afterwards. If they became notable afterwards then they would get their own article is the way I see it. However before going on a deletion crusade on those lists if there is guidelines or policies that would recommend not merging the content back into the season articles I would recommend looking into that since a lot of the content would be duplicated between the contestant and summary/episode sections. This is part of the reason why I have never suggested deleting all those lists because editors who want those lists would recreate them in the season articles and that would be too much duplicated info. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

My take on this is that an article like List of Big Brother 1 houseguests (U.S.) is likely never going to get deleted, because they'll say it's more than well-sourced enough to meet WP:GNG at WP:AfD. Now, I didn't look past the Big Brother 1 list article, but if the others are even half as well-sourced as that one, they'll survive at WP:AfD as well... So I think we should focus on naming them "correctly", at least for now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

With the Israeli Survivor articles this may need more research but based on what I see from en~Wiki and he~Wiki via translation the name Survivor Israel was never used. Survivor 10 was according to some of the logos but after the show moved from Channel Ten (Israel) to Reshet while they were sharing Channel 2 (Israel) it seems the "10" was dropped from the name. Each season has a subtitle but research is needed to ensure they are correct. I can research this one once we we circle back to Israel's version of Big Brother since they are both on Reshet now. This may also help in providing insight on how Reshet handles reality shows it acquires from other networks. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 16:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

...On the WP:TV article moving front? I've been distracted by an unrelated kerfuffle the last couple of days... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing new from me atm, I've been distracted trying to see if I can get a new fictional character template prototype that might be able to merge the dozens of identical ones. I have zero faith it will pass, but decided to give it a try. --Gonnym (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

For the moment I've taken a small break from Big Brother and went back to patrolling pending changes and reviewing new pages where I haven't done either one of them in a while. However while I was patrolling new pages today... I did come across Top Model (Poland season 7). We may need to move this one as I feel Polish would be correct not Poland. Also it seems for Top Model (Polish TV series) seasons 1-3 use one kind of naming style while seasons 4-7 are using Poland season # just a heads up there. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

New batch of RM's launched tonight. However, I've fallen into the "OVA" trap with one of them, apparently. We need to come up with a systematic "solution" for these OVA ones. The problem is that they fall "in between" WP:NCTV and WP:NCFILM, and so as a result are like being in NC "no man's land" which nobody "claims" these ones or has "jurisdiction" over them... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

IJBall This might be something to consult WP:ANIME on to reach a consensus on a proper disambig tag for OVA's. I think the idea of using (OVA) as a disambig tag is actually a good idea and doesn't try to lump them into a "TV series", miniseries or film which they are not. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"OVA" is a "fanboy" term that nobody outside of the anime group are going to know what it is (i.e. not generally WP:RECOGNIZABLE). At a minimum, it should be "OVA series" (as, apparently "OVA film" appears to also be a "thing"...), but even that is too vague for my tastes. This is why this actually needs a real discussion somewhere, not this ad hoc article naming that's going in the area right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk)

I think that OVA is meaningless. As I've showed in the discussion, dictionaries do not even mention it. Also, there is no "direct to video"/"DVD"/"iTunes" version for non anime films nor do we use "streaming series" for Netflix/Hulu and even more and more YouTube series articles are appearing as "TV series" and not only "web series" (which is starting to also be meaningless if we exclude "high value productions" for Netflix and Hulu and YouTube Red) and even stuff like Powers (U.S. TV series) are "TV series". --Gonnym (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Based on how this discussion is going, I'm starting to wonder if we should hold an WP:RfC on whether the "OVA" articles belong under WP:NCFILM or WP:NCTV... Let's see how this discussion progresses, but if this RM discussion doesn't solve the issue, an RfC may be needed to come up with a permanent solution for the OVA articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Make sense. Anime should have never even had a MoS guideline of their own, as they should either follow film or television guidelines. --Gonnym (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: No offense here but this is what kinda bugs me. Yes WP:BIGBRO had a naming convention outside of en~Wiki established guidelines but not all Wikiprojects are like this. Before saying a particular Wikiproject "should have never even had a MoS guideline of their own" you really need to read that particular Wikiproject's MOS before saying things like that. In the case of WP:ANIME their Manual of Style is a guideline that is part of the English Wikipedia's overall Manual of Style. In the section Article names and disambiguation it clearly tells the editor to follow existing guidelines including WP:NCTV and WP:NCFILM.

@IJBall: Since their MoS is an established part of en~Wiki's overall MoS and actually confirms to WP:NCTV and WP:NCFILM guidelines this is why I suggested bringing them in on this. It would be unfair to their WP which has contributed a lot of good work to en~Wiki to not consult them on a matter that directly impacts them especially when they have some knowledge in this field that can help sort this out.

The term OVA however is a recognizable one and is used by companies in official capacities when it comes to announcing titles, announcing licenses for English distribution, etc. One can easily search for an anime company and the term OVA and pull official licensing announcements, official home video releases with the term and official posts from the companies with the term so its not a "fan" term. I personally feel an RfC will be needed but I feel its wrong that WP:NCTV & WP:NCFILM should discuss or decide something that directly impacts a good WP like WP:ANIME. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason I think that no sub-group should have a manual of style is the fact that their manual of style cannot be different than their parent. They can add, but they cannot be different. So looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles, you'll see that it an essence it has duplicate sections that are already covered at both Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. That would be seen as something wrong in any "real" place. You never duplicate (or fork) content, you do however, expend. So instead of having sections for lead, infobox, etc, they should have just added the unique section about anime that deserves mention in a style guide (which to be honest, would be very limited). This however, won't happen, as Wikipedia created WikiProjects, which gave editors the impression that they WP:OWN the articles that fall under their banner. There is a reason why almost no editors from the TV/Film projects ever comes close to reality and anime articles and it's because of that. --Gonnym (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

In an example unrelated to visual media, see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(government_and_legislation)#Proposed_change_to_election/referendum_naming_format, where at one point this branched off from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) parent guideline and to correct it has taken 2 RfC in a row with around 70 editors, with the opposing editors somehow claiming that "their" event is different from all other events in the world. --Gonnym (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

No, "OVA" is not generally recognizable – I'm not an anime fan, and I had no idea what it meant before this came up. Most general readers of Wikipedia who aren't anime fans will have the same problem... Aside from that, I agree with Gonnym – a "sub-WP" is fine, provided its conventions, including "naming conventions", fall under a larger WP. IOW, WP:ANIME should either be under WP:TV or WP:FILM (or both), and cannot just willy-nilly make up its own (naming) conventions without widespread consensus – otherwise it's the definition of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. In WP:ANIME's case, they were pretty firmly slapped down, and told to conform to WP:NCTV. We will likely need to do the same with the "OVA" business, though the people who care should get to choose whether they want to conform to WP:NCTV or WP:NCFILM (and, right now, the only opinion offered on this point seemed to prefer WP:NCFILM...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

To emphasis how stupid this situation is, I've now learned that there is another term ONA - original net animation, which is, as I'm sure you can guess, another word for a "web series", which for some reason has its own category tree at Category:Anime ONAs. --Gonnym (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Eventually, we're either going to have to hold a "mass-RM", or an actual WP:RfC, in order to come up with a standard naming scheme for naming these... But I like the solution of treating "OVAs" like "direct-to-video films or film series", and just put them under WP:NCFILM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't oppose that idea however, if that does happen, all the terminology used in the article would need to change, so I hope those advocating that usage take that into consideration. Looking at JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (1993 anime series) as a test example:

• The first six episodes were originally released by
• The second season, consisting of seven episodes
• these additional episodes, titled "Adventure 1" through "7", served as a prequel to the earlier-produced episodes
• A DVD box set featuring all 13 episodes
• Section: "Episode list"
• Infobox: "Episodes 6 (List of episodes)"

Films do not have episodes. Films do not have seasons. Again, I don't oppose if that is the direction it will take, but this seems like it sounds like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, but we call it a horse. --Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Granted, though I think switching "season" for the word "series" (the "UK term" anyway) solves alot of those issues. Dunno what to do about the "episode(s)" issue, though – probably would have to replace with the word "segment"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And just to spice things even more - one non-Japanese "OVA" Bibleman (the new version, old version is "OVF") and one "OVF" The Adventures of Timmy the Tooth (both tagged with various television categories). --Gonnym (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, so it may have to be an RfC... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I am tempted to try to get Original net animation deleted as undersourced, and a WP:NEOLOGISM. What's the difference between this, and "web series" or "streaming TV series"?! – Oh, yeah, there isn't one, except that it's "anime" and so it's "special". Anyway, I think that's a prime deletion candidate... So, otherwise, I'd be tempted to WP:RM Double Circle (anime) to Double Circle (web series), but I'm worried that we'll get the same "push back" from WP:ANIME that we're getting on the OVA thing. (Meanwhile, Busou Shinki (anime) looks like an easy non-controversial move to Busou Shinki (TV series), so that's good at least...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to find it, but I remember there was an RfC on that subject that deprecated anime as an option for disambiugation. Maybe you know how to find it. --Gonnym (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Found it - Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive_141#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator? --Gonnym (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I've actually re-read this and it seems OVA were actually talked about here also but the closer for some reason didn't address them. I wish I could get statistics about the usage of "OVA" as a disambiguator before and after this RfC to see if all OVAs were using "anime" before and instead of confirming to the RfC result, just decided to use something else. Which I have a suspicion is what exactly happened. --Gonnym (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Y'all being a bit rough here there is no reason to delete the article ONA it is a term used just like direct-to-video, web series, etc that all have articles but are not used as disambiguators. The talk here is starting to sound like y'all picking on WP:ANIME a bit. I would recommend tagging the article with a single source tag first to allow it the chance to be improved upon before just throwing it in the trash. IMO it seems like WP:NCTV has a grasp on how to handle ONAs with (TV series) (for first run anime aired worldwide including Japan by Netflix, Amazon Video, etc.) and (web series). So ONA is not needed and is well covered here and would be pretty hard to oppose that fact plus I haven't seen any Western anime company use the term ONA like they have OVA. I would support WP:NCTV position in RMs if article titles started to appear with ONA as a disambig tag btw. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I think if this one passes, you would be justified in updating the wording of WP:NCTV on the topic of "by country" disambiguation. You may want to run the new wording by one or more of us first. But we have at least half-a-dozen WP:RM "precedents" now (and I bet a more deliberate search on the subject, going back one or more years, might yield a dozen examples or more...), so I think it's fair to say that "by country" disambiguation is "preferred", esp. in those cases where there is a TV show with the same title from just two different countries... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you create a separate tracking category for the misnamed "anime" shows? I'd like to keep my focus on the main Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style list for now, and I'd rather the "anime" ones be put in a separate cat., a la the "news programs" one. That will allow me to pick off the anime ones at my leisure, while still keep the focus on the main category... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you think I can ask an AWB task to move pages with (anime) from one category to another? It's around 85ish so wouldn't want to manually do that again. --Gonnym (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: made a request. BTW, regarding Pokemon, I think your move was wrong. I read now the discussion for the opposing sides and they list films and other anime which is no longer present in the article. It seems all that was removed earlier this month, making the opposing arguments irrelevant now. --Gonnym (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think AWB would have been OK for this. As for the cat., I'd still leave it in "disputed" as there was a previous RM on the matter – doesn't mean we can't have a follow-up one... But I consider that one more "disputed" than "wrong". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget List of Witchblade (anime) episodes. --Gonnym (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Single-season episode listing – when the article is moved, I will simply merge that back to the Witchblade anime article. So there's no need to include that one in the RM... But good catch! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gonnym, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Got a new category for you: Category:Television game shows with incorrect disambiguation (or something like that...). For example, most of the entries in List of American game shows which are disambiguated by "TV series" rather than "game show" should likely be in this category... FWIW! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Beware of what you wish for... --Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

[sigh...] OK, I'll start pecking away at this one too... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

What is wrong with The Blind Date (2000 TV series), Never Say Die (1970 TV series), Riders in the Sky (1991 TV series), Together Forever (2012 TV series), etc.? These all look correctly named to me... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't have a category to put them in and knew you'd either figure it out to ask me so wasn't worried. They are just over disambiguated. They all can be just (TV series) (just make sure those were indeed the ones I am referring to). --Gonnym (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

We need a new cat. then: Category:Television articles with unnecessary disambiguation. That would be a good category to create, because it'll the easiest ones to fix! (by far!!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Might be the easiest to fix, but the hardest to find. I only found them while I was testing out a new tool I found that says what pages are missing from dab articles, but I've exhausted that list. Maybe if there was a tool that checked if an article with Foo (TV series) and articles with Foo (X TV series) it would be worth having that cat. --Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Still, you've found enough of them to populate a separate cat., so there's no reason not to create this cat, at least for now... (But, yeah – usually when I find these myself, I fix them on the spot – they usually don't require extra "thinking" like some of these other ones do...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, starting to go through these – what's wrong with Vanity Fair (1978 TV series) outside of its being missing from Vanity Fair#Television? Sure, it could be at Vanity Fair (Hong Kong TV series), but that doesn't actually make the diambiguation "wrong"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much the fact that it could probably be moved away from year. --Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

For this one, I'll create Vanity Fair (Hong Kong TV series) as a redirect. But, again, Vanity Fair (1978 TV series) isn't "wrong" (under WP:NCTV), and shouldn't be tagged (and probably shouldn't be moved to Vanity Fair (Hong Kong TV series) without a WP:RM, as per WP:CONSISTENCY...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, what's wrong with Ready Steady Go (Pakistani TV series)?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Ready Steady Go (TV series) redirects to this page, which is why I tagged it (again, I was going through dozens of articles so didn't have time to fine tune new categories). Need to check if there is another article and the redirect needs to be fixed, or the article should be moved to base disambiguation. --Gonnym (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is that Ready Steady Go! also exists. As a result, I don't think that Ready Steady Go (Pakistani TV series) is "overly disambiguated"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018 November 30#Ready Steady Go (TV series). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Some more: I've looked at Battlefield (TV series) and Black Rose (TV series), which are tagged with Category:Television articles using insufficient disambiguation, but I don't see any other TV series articles with these titles – so what am I missing? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind! I see now that I needed to read the edit summaries!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of these I'm going to leave for now – for example, The Heights (Australian TV series) hasn't even premiered yet, and I don't think it's worth it to move The Heights (TV series) (the American one) until that happens. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Battlefield

OK, I just moved Battlefield (TV series) → Battlefield (U.S. TV series), but I feel like I made a boo-boo – while the infobox says "United States" and "PBS", the production section implies it's a UK series. I have no prejudice against somebody else moving this to Battlefield (UK TV series), esp. if they can verify it was a UK (only)-produced series. If it's some kind of weird co-national production, then it should possibly be moved to Battlefield (1994 TV series). Either way, it will involve updating some links I just manually updated, so I'd rather leave that part to somebody with WP:AWB capabilities... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I tried finding information, but couldn't find any sources talking about the production of the show. Regarding the links, you want me to redirect the links that went to Battlefield (TV series) to now lead to Battlefield (U.S. TV series)? If so, there are none. --Gonnym (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that manually – what I was saying was: if the article needs to be moved a second time, I didn't want to have to update the links myself manually again! But let's leave the article where it is for now, as there doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence that it wasn't a U.S.-produced series... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym – are you ready to fire up your WP:AWB for the first time?!! So, I have moved Marketplace (TV series) to Marketplace (Canadian TV program) – but all(?) of the links currently pointing towards Marketplace (TV series) need to be retargeted to Marketplace (Canadian TV program) (and there are a lot of them!), as per WP:INCDAB. Think you can do it?... Once you do that, one of us can point Marketplace (TV series) back to Marketplace (disambiguation)... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Did I get AWB? --Gonnym (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep – your name was added to the "check" page: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice, I already gave up on that request so forgot about it. I need to learn how this works, so I might not be able to do that request, but give me a bit to find out. --Gonnym (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, give it a try! If you can't get it to work, one of us can forward this request to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I ran into an issue. This shows it still has links, but those articles don't have the link when I manually search them, like this one - Canada Now. Any idea?

It doesn't look like an issue! I just checked what links here for that, and I don't see any mainspace links left! Looks like you successfully did it!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe templates take time to update the what links here as I had over 80 showing before. --Gonnym (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, templates definitely take time – I think up to an hour to "clear" template links from the logs. But the important thing about using AWB for this is that you only need to get the mainspace (and maybe the File-space?) links – links on Talk page and User talk pages don't need to be updated. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh ok, got it. Won't change those again. --Gonnym (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)