This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naming conventions (television) page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17: 6 months

Television Project‑class

	Television portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Move TV seasons from parenthetical disambiguation to comma disambiguation[edit]

NO CONSENSUS

There appears to be a rough consensus to change from parenthetical disambiguators, however, there was no clear consensus for any of the options brought up during the discussion. ~~A new RfC with the following options would likely lead to a consensus.~~

~~Option 1 (status quo): TV Series (season 1)~~
~~Option 2 (comma): TV Series (British TV series), season 51~~
~~Option 3 (space): TV Series (2032 TV series) season pi/2~~
~~Option 4 (colon): TV Series: season infinity~~

voorts (talk/contributions) 20:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon re-reviewing my close and the discussion after BD2412 came to my talk page, I am sticking to my original close, but I am adding the following to explain my reasoning. (I am also changing this from being hatted as an RfC to being hatted as a discussion, since this was not in fact an RfC.) This discussion essentially boiled down to comma vs. no punctuation. Numerically, more editors preferred no punctuation to commas (and very few editors supported colons, but the following applies to colons as well). However, this is NOTAVOTE, so I proceeded to evaluate the arguments on each side. The primary disputes were around whether (1) no punctuation would be more confusing for readers, (2) no punctuation is used in RSes, and (3) if we treat "season X" as a disambiguator, no punctuation is appropriate. I found competing assertions on both sides for the first point of contention, with little in the way of explanation as to why one option would be more confusing over the other. The second issue was raised by one editor, and nobody pointed to any RSes either way, so I discounted that argument too. As for the third argument, there was no consensus around whether "season X" even is a disambiguator. Thus, I found no consensus based on P&Gs for use of either option.

I have also struck the proposed RfC above, as BD pointed out to me that since there was rough consensus to eliminate parentheses, that shouldn't be an option. Instead, I propose the following:

Option 1 (no punctuation): Foo season bar
Option 2 (comma): Foo, season bar
Option 3 (colon): Foo: season bar

As appropriate, the date or nationality of a TV show should be incorporated where more than one show shares the same name. For example: Foo (2023 British TV series) season bar or Foo (Australian TV series), season bar or Foo (1972 TV series): season bar.

In reaching consensus in the next discussion on this topic, should there be one, it would be helpful for editors to address whether adding "season X" to the name of a TV show is a form of disambiguation and how RSes identify seasons of TV programs. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia has thousands of articles on TV seasons of specific shows at titles like The Crown (season 4), Shark Tank (season 12), and One Piece (season 20). However, unlike disambiguators that disambiguate different kinds of things sharing the same name, like Mercury (planet)/Mercury (element)/Mercury (mythology), these are really merely instances of the same things. I propose that the titling scheme should be changed to comma disambiguation, so that titles like the above would be at The Crown, season 4, Shark Tank, season 12, and One Piece, season 20. I believe that this is a more natural disambiguation scheme, and would enable us to avoid the current phenomenon of actual disambiguation pages at titles like Degrassi (season 1), Dynasty (season 3), The Great British Baking Show (season 5), and Secret Story (season 7).

Shows with other ambiguous elements would continue to use parentheses for those elements, so MacGyver (2016 TV series, season 5) would become MacGyver (2016 TV series), season 5 and The Voice (Australian season 7) would become The Voice (Australia), season 7. There are, by my count, 6,334 articles on TV show seasons with "(season X)" parentheticals. There is some additional number using parentheticals for "series" (used in the sense of a season, rather than as a "TV series") rather than "season", which would also be covered by this proposal. BD2412 T 04:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I already tried that in 2020, the whole thing is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 17#Season naming convention (continued), but as far as I can tell, the general idea "don't fix what isn't broken", even if I agree that it's absolutely broken and against Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines. You are quite correct: if Mercury (mythology) concerns the concept called Mercury that is specifically from mythology, by the same rules, One Piece (season 20) would concern the concept called One Piece that is specifically from some "season 20", which makes zero sense. -- Alex_21_TALK 07:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a link to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 17#RFC: What should the naming convention for television season articles be? as well, to show the clear options given for commas. -- Alex_21_TALK 07:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, despite the amount of work it will entail, because this would fix several confusing disambiguation-related problems at the same time (while introducing no new ones), and will better comply with policy (WP:NATURALDIS instructs us to use natural disambiguation or failing that then comma disambiguation styles before resorting to parenthetical; they are in top-bottom order for a reason, just like the WP:CRITERIA are). I'm not perturbed at all that a previous proposal vaguely similar to this (but in favor of colons) failed to gain consensus, since many changes take more than one proposal, and this one is has clearer rationales than the old one, and is much better aligned with our title practices (the colon style is almost exclusively used for articles split up for length into a series of regular segements, like "List of [whatevers]: A–M", etc., and even this is sometimes done with commas or parens instead today). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but calling the part between the parentheses "disambiguation" is incorrect. The article is on a specific season of a TV show, not different TV shows by the same name where "season x" is the way of differentiating them. Put another way, the season number is an integral part of the title. Because of this confusion, renaming them is absolutely the way to go. I actually think dropping all punctuation is the most natural, preferring "Shark Tank season 12" to both "Shark Tank, season 12" and "Shark Tank (season 12)". -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure yet, but oppose the part of The Voice (Australian season 7) would become The Voice (Australia), season 7. The correct title would be The Voice (Australian TV series), season 7 per the actual article at The Voice (Australian TV series). We shouldn't make up different titles in the season articles. Additional note, if this proposal passes, please ping me as it requires module updates. Gonnym (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a good point, but a minor one and probably shouldn't lead to a blanket "oppose"; this is something that could be tweaked in the proposed language easily. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't blanket oppose, I specifically wrote that I oppose only that part. Gonnym (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the "season 7" element makes it clear that this is a TV series, but I have no problem with following the primary topic title to the extent that these are an issue. BD2412 T 19:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yuk! Looks awful and not an improvement in any way. Solution in search of a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that Wikipedia has long adopted the convention of using parentheticals to indicate actual ambiguity between topics. George Washington (trombonist) is a different person from George Washington, not an instance of the president being a trombonist. Seasons of the same TV series are not ambiguous to each other, as they are related. BD2412 T 16:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems too subjective and insubstantial to be consensus-formation meaningful in any way, Necrothesp. The actual problems have been clearly identified, so claiming it's "in search of a problem" is clearly false. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - They may have been "identified", but that doesn't mean I have to agree that they're a problem! I don't. I have never, ever looked at this and thought, "oh dear, that's a problem"! All I can see here is a proposal to take something that looks perfectly good and works perfectly well and change it for the sake of it (and make it look awful). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except problems with this have already been identified in this discussion, including issues with Wikidata, and how it does not conform with Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines, thus it does not "work perfectly well". Whether you consider it a problem because you haven't personally had to deal with it is is irrelevant; if it is a problem for anyone outside yourself, then it remains a problem. -- Alex_21_TALK 19:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why a comma rather than, say, a colon (One Piece: Season 20) or nothing at all (The Simpsons Season 33 / The Simpsons season 33)? Both are also in usage in listings and reviews and commentaries. Just asking to really grasp all the particulars on it. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 14:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle because the current naming convention violates core disambiguation principles. However, I would prefer a colon over a comma, as the latter looks a bit ugly to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @TenTonParasol and King of Hearts: have you ever seen colons used in titles in Wikipedia other than to indicate formal subtitles, where the colon is part of the published name of the media? BD2412 T 16:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  There's technically an argument to be made that this is comparable to a subtitle or is arguably sometimes (often?) treated like one: The Crown: Season 3, Mad Men: Season 3 (in the where to buy), The Legend of Vox Machina: Season 2 review (though no punctuation in the body!), The Simpsons: Season 35 (page title up in the tab). Hence why I bring it up. The colons aren't even my preference, really.
  
  Personally, I think the comma into a lowercase looks extremely sloppy. Arguably, it's preferable to go "The Crown Season 3", no space, treat season like a proper noun—and arguably it's treated like one by many sources anyway in this context. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 16:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I am not terribly opposed to no punctuation, since a season of a show is its own discrete entity. BD2412 T 18:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I am terribly opposed to it, since its extremly confusing to anyone not already familar with what the article is about. And as for TonTonParasol's additional ideas, WP does not "treat [something] like a proper noun" if it isn't one, and we don't capitalize things unless they are capitalized in an overwhelming majority of RS ("many" doesn't cut it); see top of MOS:CAPS, and see also MOS:SIGCAPS. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Proper noun is the wrong phrase, used because I couldn't come up with a better one. I should've said "as arguable part of the title of the discrete entity that is the season". Press release for The Legend of Vox Machina has some interesting splits in it on that, one that AMC does not do in a Mad Men press release, but HBO capitalizes it throughout their official page for GoT as does Netflix. I don't actually feel very strongly about the capitalization, and "proper noun" is a slip on my part. I was attempting to observe that it is often considered part of the title of the concept of the season. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  To add, I agree with BD2412 stating above, though in a different context, that "season" would make it clear that this is a television series. I don't actually think it's likely that a reader will see "The Crown Season 3" or "The Simpsons season 34" and get confused about what the article is about, since that's how these things are referred to in common parlance anyway. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 20:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  That's just blindly assuming that the reader knows that The Crown is the title of a TV show. And season has mutiple meanings. There are lots of movies with "Season" in their titles, and if they have sequels they result in your preferred format for TV shows seasons; Open Season 2 is a real-world example that it only took me 15 seconds to find. So, this is provably confusing. I don't think "arguable part of the title of the discrete entity that is the season" really means anything concrete. And WP doesn't care what a couple of other websites prefer as their internal writing style – especially since they are in the business of selling access to these things as discrete "products", so they are inclined to view something like The Crown: Season 2 or The Crown, season 2 or whatever as a unitary name for an item of product, which has nothing to do with what WP is doing or thinking, or what our readers are for that matter. And the fact that people in the common parlance say aloud "The Crown season 2" has no implications of any kind for how we capitalize and punctuate, nor does how people write in social media, which is pretty much devoid of any semblance of typographic norms. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I brought up common parlance per an idea that we can possibly expect readers broadly to be generally familiar with a 'title season number' construction. Most readers would probably parse "Loki season 2", "Loki: Season 2", "Loki - season 2", "Loki, Season 2", "Loki (season 2)", and "Season 2 of Loki" with equal comprehension. So, I don't think no separator would extremely confusing as a result. Common parlance offers no guidance as to which to pick, but it leads me to believe that they'd all be reasonably expected and understandable.
  
  Still, the argument does push me to find no punctuation with a lowercase preferable at this time. Functionally, it drops parentheses in most cases, "Loki season 2". Short descriptions and hatnotes further help readers confirm it's what they're looking for. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 22:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  An argument that a season identifier after the series title "is comparable to a subtitle" isn't "technical" in any way; it's just confusion as to what "subtitle" means. The fact that a few publications like to punctuate these things with a colon really has nothing to do with what it is, nor with what WP should use for our internal article-titling practices, especially when we have a need to distinguish between something like "Show Title, season 2" (specificity) and "Show Title (Country TV series)" (true disambiguation). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I think you're trying to argue that "Loki season 2" is somehow more natural than "Loki, season 2" or "Loki: season 2" or "Loki (season 2)", but we have no evidence suggesting this, and if the principle were generalizable and demonstrable, we would not use comma, colon, or parenthetial disambiguation in the first place. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I'm just imagining what arguments may be made to go through the process of eliminating other solutions, and the colon is rather common in streaming listings, DVD listings, official website subsections, and publications, so I just wanted it addressed since it's a familiar convention. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 20:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Probably more productive to let people raise objections if they have rationales for them rather than try to invent ones you don't hold but imagine that someone else might hold. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. Ranked preferences for format would be 1) no punctuation and lower case; 2) colon and lower case; 3) any of the other alternatives to parentheses suggested so far. older ≠ wiser 17:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, with a preference for no separator as that appears to be the most common approach in the (few) sources I spot-checked. I’d be open to another separator character if there were good source evidence for that usage, but if there’s no consensus amongst sources then simpler seems better. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, I vaguely recall noticing it a couple of times and being slightly confused at why we had parentheses there, it doesn't really seem to fit. I thought it might have been done to be useful for piping, in case an editor would just want to type something like "In 2023, Smith acted in [[Some Series (season 3)|]], ..." but it seems improbable because it doesn't scale beyond a single season, and if we mention an acting role beyond a list entry it's often going to be because it was multiple seasons, and besides, I don't know that we want to point an average reader reading a biography to a specific season with a pipe link anyway. --Joy (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with no punctuation, and lower case. And use full "country TV series) to disambig countries). Hyperbolick (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for the following reasons:
1. It looks horrendous and messy. Call this an IDONTLIKEIT comment, but I do think readability is a valid concern when it comes to article titles.
2. To say that comma-separated disambiguation is more natural than parenthetical disambiguation is false. WP:NCDAB lists the three forms of disambiguation as natural, comma-separated, and parenthetical. Comma-separated disambiguation is therefore no more natural or unnatural than parenthetical disambiguation.
3. It is also inaccurate to say that parenthetical disambiguation disambiguate[s] different kinds of things sharing the same name while comma-separated disambiguation does not. "Berkshire" in Windsor, Berkshire describes the larger area which the article subject is situated in, while "Princess of Wales" Diana, Princess of Wales describes who/what the article subject is. That means a comma functions the same way as parentheses, as outlined at WP:NCDAB.
4. Colons, not commas, are usually the go-to choice for indicating subtopics or "split" articles. See WP:NCSPLITLIST, for example. But in this case, a colon for season articles will only create complications for series whose titles already have a colon.
5. The two comma-separated examples I listed above, Windsor, Berkshire and Diana, Princess of Wales, are constructions that are already commonly used outside of Wikipedia. Something like Loki, season 2, however, is not. If you look at sources online, sources usually go with Loki season 2 (the italics are sometimes swapped for quotation marks, depending on the source's style guide, and "season" is sometimes capitalized). Theoretically, that could work for us, but in my opinion that too looks messy and creates readibility issues.
6. ~~WP:AT~~WP:NCDAB is a guideline, not a policy. If there is no breach in policy, and the circumstances clearly warrant an WP:IAR situation, and parenthetical disambiguation has already been in place for a very long time, there is no reason for us to make such a drastic and meaningless change. WP:AINTBROKE.

Also, this discussion needs to be advertised in more places, including WikiProjects with TV season articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, WP:AT is actually policy :D Also, I don't quite understand the point about colons, when the linked naming convention for lists says it's a preferred model, and then immediately says a comma model is common and acceptable. --Joy (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, MOS:TITLE says we can use ((Italic title|string=Loki)) for the partially italicized style you mentioned. --Joy (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant NCDAB, not AT. I know about ((Italic title)), but that still isn't as neat as having parentheses. My point about colons is that commas usually function the same as parentheses (for example with th Windsor and Diana examples), in which case there is no reason to change. MOS:VAR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@InfiniteNexus: Entire premise (yours and the OP) is faulty, isn’t it, though? Since these are unambiguous topics. Your point that there should be no commas or parens (eg with Loki season 2) is right on, though. Would only ever need parens if there were two different series with multiple seasons like a Loki (Australian TV series) season 2 Hyperbolick (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it looks messier without parentheses. Sure, you can argue that's a cosmetic/ILIKEIT argument, but again, we should make sure our article titles are easy on readers' eyes. This isn't a disambiguation situation, therefore we are free to choose whatever method works best. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a disambiguation situation, therefore we are free to choose whatever method works best. Are there really no rules for titles of unambiguous works? Not common mame, even? Hyperbolick (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(season 2) vs. , season 2 vs. season 2 isn't a matter of common vs. uncommon name, it's a matter of styling the already common name. The COMMONNAME argument would apply to a proposal to switch to (series 2) or (part 2) or whatever. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose or more specifically, allow comma use on a case-by-case basis. With several older programs, the nature of seasons really didn't matter, so calling something like, for example "Cheers, season 1" would not make any sense. There are programs that the season or series numbers does matter, namely something like Doctor Who where this comma usage would make sense, but that should not be established as a standard. --Masem (t) 03:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Doctor Who pre-dates Cheers by 19 years, so your "older programs" argument is completely backward. Why would Doctor Who, season 1 "make sense" but Cheers, season 1 "not make any sense"? What sense, to whom? This is so subjetive and odd that no, well, sense can be made of it as an argument. There doesn't appear to be anyone, anywhere for whom Cheers, season 1 does "not make any sense". It makes the perfect and obvious sense that it's about season 1 of Cheers, and given our disambiguation patterns, it makes much more sense than Cheers (season 1), which implies a type of thing called "season 1s" and a "Cheers" that happens to be one of those, just as Secretariat (horse) indicates an individual exemplar named "Secretariat" of a class of things called "horses". Your "doesn't make any sense" argument would seem to militate against even Cheers (season 1), anyway. And why shouldn't one pattern of the sort proposed here be "established as a standard", when WP:CONSISTENT policy clearly tells us to be consistent in our naming patterns, and we have WP:COMMADIS in the same policy placed higher than (i.e. preferable to) parenthetical disambiguation when the former is available. Just asserting that a standard shouldn't be established, without a rationale, isn't at all an argument against establishing a standard. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Cheers, season 1" is not a way that the show is referred to, because outside of a few instances of actors, the seasons of that show generally ran together. And for Doctor Who, it is more like Doctor Who (series 1) (not season!) that could benefit for being called "Doctor Who, series 1" since that itself is generally well encapsulated and referred to as that. Masem (t) 04:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But Cheers, season 1 (punctuated however you like) is how that season of the show is referred to. We have an article on it, and it has sources. See also [1], including the first link where it is being official sold as season 1 of Cheers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why my vote is "Case by Case", rather than trying to force one way or the other. Where it falls naturally to use commas, use them there; otherwise, where there is no major distinctions of seasons of a show, probably better to use paratheticals. Masem (t) 05:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no case where using a comma for this would be "unnatural"; it's just one of the several competing but common ways to write these things, and we should use one consistently instead of veer back and forth between conflicting styles for no reason. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SMcCandlish, don't think this point about Cheers is particularly clear. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Doctor Who (season 1). Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The 10 following WikiProjects and taskforces have been notified of this discussion: WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Anime and manga, the Arrowverse task force, WikiProject Disney, WikiProject Doctor Who, the Episode coverage task force, the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force, WikiProject Star Trek, WikiProject Star Wars, and WikiProject The Simpsons. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support for "X season Y" without colon or comma, I could accept comma but I think its best without. Either way the parentheses need to go, they create a mess for Wikidata.★Trekker (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain the issue with Wikidata? Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata doesn't (generally) allow brackets or disambiguators in labels, which means a lot of the time for season items people have to come in and manually fix all season labels and add descriptions for them to be useful otherwise all of them end up looking identical without descriptions, if we had a format without brackets all that work could be done by bots instead.★Trekker (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support X season Y; I usually just edit anime articles, so apologies if this argument is too centered around that, but using One Piece as an example, due to there being two TV series of the same nationality (One Piece (1999 TV series) and One Piece (2023 TV series)) the year is used as disambiguation. However, based on WP:TVSEASON, which states If there are multiple shows of the same name, include the disambiguation, similar to the above for TV series in the season description, means the season pages like One Piece (season 1) should be titled "One Piece (1999 TV series season 1)", which I think looks awkward, whereas "One Piece (1999 TV series) season 1" I think looks more appealing, though perhaps this is veering too much into WP:ILIKEIT territory. Link20XX (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The season number is not generally part of the name, for example Doctor Who season 1 and Doctor Who season 2 are technically both just called Doctor Who. That is why it is appropriate to include the season number in disambig parentheses, just like if we were talking about two different series called Doctor Who. If there was consensus for "Doctor Who (season 1)" breaking the normal disambig rules then it should be changed to "Doctor Who season 1", not "Doctor Who, season 1". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'll just repeat what I wrote three years ago: "The parenthetical disambiguation for season articles never made any sense to me. Grammatically, the parentheses in my view emphasize the series itself and make the season seem like an afterthought, whereas the article is actually about the season. Sure, 'it ain't broke,' but no one has pointed out a downside to improving this naming convention." -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be the one: parentheses are much cleaner, as they clearly distinguish the season number from the show title. Removing parentheses would mean everything is jumbled together in a confusing manner, and readers may need to read an article title twice before catching on. I can foresee problems especially with shows with longer titles. And with any major change comes a massive headache. First there's the cleanup effort. This will likely be done using bots/AWB, but it is still a massive task that requires substantial planning — for example, what to do with unusual/tricky cases — and will cause significant disruption. By disruption I mean (1) everyone's watchlists will be inundated with page moves, (2) editors unaware of this non-RfC will be bewildered, and we all saw what happened with the Vector 2022 rollout, and (3) editors will need to be retrained. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Cleaner" is an opinion that I disagree with, but it also ignores my (and other editors') point that the article is about the season, not the show, so the subject should be emphasized. Parentheticals are usually used to disambiguate subjects with the same name– that's not the case here, since the seasons are the focal point– User:BD2412's example about George Washington is exactly right. The page moves point is not a big concern. Four years ago we changed every "U.S. TV series" and "UK TV series" to "American" and "British," respectively – the moves happened smoothly and no one's thinking about the logistics of that any longer. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Parentheticals are usually used to disambiguate subjects with the same name but not always. We have articles like Timeline of World War II (1939). This is a convention, not a rule. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support As the above mentions, this was brought up three years ago (started by myself, nonetheless), and I still support such a change. The format specifically, I have no issues with, whether it's a comma or no separation between show and season I agree with both, but we need to get rid of the parentheses. To paraphrase my quote above, The Flash (2014 TV series) is titled as such because The Flash is a 2014 TV series, and by following that line of thought, The Flash (season 1) would be titled as such because The Flash is a "season 1". If that were the case, the lead should state "The Flash is the first season of the American television series The Flash", but it is rather a subset of a wider project. -- Alex_21_TALK 09:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer no comma here, since "The Simpsons, season 8 episodes" is awkward compared to "The Simpsons season 8 episodes" and the current Category:The Simpsons (season 8) episodes. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose – I understand the general principle, but I don't think the benefit of switching to commas is worth the work needed to make the changes. (I also personally find the commas awkward but I understand if people want to ignore that argument.) If we really wanted to make a change, we could go with "Season X (Show)" – this would be more in line with disambiguation norms and it would enable the pipe trick when people want to link to season articles, but that's a much different idea than what is being proposed here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I ran a quick search for "(season" and "(series" in all mainspace titles and got a slightly different count of the number of moves needed – 11,187 and 3,298, respectively. I did it quickly so it may not be a perfect search, just wanted to compare to the original count of 6,334. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The leading proposal at this time is to have no punctuation at all, which I am fine with. That treats the article subject, e.g. "Blue Bloods season 8", as a thing in itself. As for the number of pages affected, I obtained that from the number of articles in the TV seasons category tree. When we made the decision to disambiguate the title New York, I personally made about 80,000 fixes within the span of a few weeks, but this would be done by a bot, so nearly automatic. BD2412 T 19:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The no-comma option requires the same work, and just because a bot does it doesn't mean it isn't disruptive to some degree. And the no-comma option still feels a little awkward to me since I don't often see "Show season X" as a single phrase in writing ("Season X of Show" is more common in writing but that seems like a poor title – hence my personal suggestion, even if nobody else supports it). RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By that measure, every edit made to Wikipedia is "disruptive to some degree". BD2412 T 18:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wholeheartedly agree with the no-comma option still feels a little awkward to me since I don't often see "Show season X" as a single phrase in writing. This no-punctuation idea is a case of WP editors trying to make up their own fake style out of nowhere, against independent reliable source usage, which is something that consensus has been against for a very long time. Sources are not consistent on one style (commas, colons, hyphens or dashes, brackets of various sorts), but they are consistent in hardly ever using the confusing "Show season X" style. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the Wikidata argument, we should not be using Wikidata to determine article titles. Wikidata isn't reader-facing. The world doesn't revolve around Wikidata; Wikidata should be the one that accommodates Wikipedia article titles. The primary concern that we should be focusing on is which of the following is easier on readers' eyes: The Suite Life of Zack & Cody (season 2) or The Suite Life of Zack & Cody season 2; Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 17) or Law & Order: Special Victims Unit season 17. Keep in mind that italics don't show on search results, autocomplete, categories, or Google Search. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the criterion you want, then I would still go for "The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, season 2" and "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, season 17", since it separates the title from the season, but is less visually disruptive than parentheses, and the comma-separated season won't be suppressed the way parenthetical everything is hidden by various tools, including Google previews and our own built-in hovercards. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds, other than to accommodate Wikidata? There are no PAGs that govern how we name "subtopic" articles, nor is there a PAG that says parentheses may only be used for disambiguation. Accordingly, MOS:VAR tells us to defer to the status quo and keep doing what we have been doing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just told you on what grounds. Repeat: since it separates the title from the season, but is less visually disruptive than parentheses, and the comma-separated season won't be suppressed the way parenthetical everything is hidden by various tools, including Google previews and our own built-in hovercards. WP:COMMONSENSE exists for a reason. Not everthing has to come down to "Do you have a rule to thump?" Cf. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:WIKILAWYER. Any time someone is opposing something that clearly makes sense just because there isn't a rule that mandates it, they are making a mistake. And MOS:VAR is about in-article content; it has nothing to do with article titles. These season strings are effectively serving as a form of topical disambiguation (between other articles on seasons/series of the same show), and WP:AT policy specifies a preferential order of such formats: natural disambiguation (which doesn't really apply here; there is nothing "natural" about running the show title against the season designator, and this style is poorly attested in sources; see also note about NCPSPLITLIST below); comma-separated; parenthetical; and descriptive (i.e. a phrase made up by Wikipedians for a subject that doesn't really have a common name), in that order. Comma trumps parenthetical. On the other hand, WP:NCSPLITLIST guideline (and an argument can be made that these season articles are like unto a split list of episodes) suggests colon as preferable, and comma as an alternative. So, there is no "one true rule" to thump here, though it is important that both of these pages accept commas as the method. The first does not accept colons, and the latter accepts parenthetical only a third choice. Maybe more to the point, the "use no punctuation" option is specifically "deprecated as ambiguous, hard to read", with various unpunctuated examples shown (along with examples that are otherwise problematic, e.g. for being reundantly longwinded, which aren't relevant to this discussion). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(SMcCandlish, duplicate signature removed.) You don't need "a rule to thump" to enact a change. But without invoking PAGs, this discussion is essentially a battle between ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT. That is never a good reason to delete an article, and that is certainly not a good reason to rename thousands of articles. Those !voting support are citing two contradictory arguments at once: one group claims that parentheses should only be used for disambiguation, and since (TV series) is not a form of disambiguation, we should use commas instead; the other group claims (TV series) is a form of disambiguation, but comma-separated disambiguation should be used instead because it is superior. Both arguments are flawed: for those saying parentheses can only be used for disambiguation, I have pointed out that no PAGs support this claim, and in any case, their argument can be extended to commas as well; for those saying comma-separated disambiguation is a superior form of disambiguation, it makes sense to use commas for subjects like place names and regnal titles, where such a construction is commonplace outside of Wikipedia, but no one uses commas for TV seasons, including sources. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. The fact that mutiple arguments exist against something and are not entirely in synch with each other doesn't make them both invalid. It simply means people oppose your preference for mutiple reasons. And I haven't seen anyone in here ever say "parentheses should only be used for disambiguation", so that seems to be a straw man; rather, the argument is that it looks like (i.e., is by readers confusable with) disambiguation, since our main disambiguation technique is parenthetical (because "natural" and comma styles tend not to really exist for most topics), and for the kind of case here we have alternatives to use anyway. The other argument you don't like is that if one wants to interpret this is a form of disambiguation, then we should use comma style, since it is preferred when available over parenthetical, and it is available since some sources do use it, and it is not confusing in any way. These arguments really don't have anything to do with each other, but both of them are independent and severable reasonable arguments to avoid "Foo (season X)" style titles. "no one uses commas for TV seasons, including sources" isn't actually true; the style is rare in the entertainment press but so is parenthetical, which verges on non-existent. In trawling through Google News searches on various TV-show titles followed by the word "season", the vast majority confusingly use no puctuation or other separation at all, quite a few put the show name in quotation marks (which WP doesn't and never will), fewer use italics, but WP can't do that in a title, a few less use a pipe | symbol which can't work in a WP article title, and a few less again use a dash or hyphen which WP could do, but which I don't see anyone proposing (though using a dash would be sactioned by WP:NCSPLITLIST), and even fewer use a colon (which would be a poor choice here because some many show titles include their own internal colon, as in Star Trek: Discovery). Commas are even less common, and parentheses (round brackets) least common of all. So, at this point, I would support using an end dash first and a comma as second choice. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And now en dashes have entered the mix... We should not be using commas (or any unconventional method of disambiguation) unless many sources do so as well. If we were to use comma-separated disambiguation whenever possible, even when virtually no one else does, most of our articles would be comma-disambiguated rather than parenthetically. For example, job titles (e.g. Chris Evans (actor)) and locations (e.g. Glacier National Park (U.S.)) can easily be preceded by a comma rather than parentheses, but this is not the case. Since sources do not agree on which styling to use (meaning, there is no overwhelmingly common way to disambiguate), and very few use commas, the default should be parentheses. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But why would we prefer parens when they are not more common (at least as uncommon a commas) in the source material than either colons or en dashes? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is the standard on Wikipedia if natural and comma-separated disambiguation are virtually non-existent. To change this norm would require a complete overhaul of WP:NCDAB, and most parenthetically disambiguated articles would have to be moved. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that's reasonable from a "this is disambigution" perspective, but there is denial throughout this thread that it is in fact disambiguation, rather than being a form of split list, for which both en dash and colon are permitted in the titles (in that order of preferences). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An earlier comment of yours seemed to suggest that you were on the "this-is-disambiguation" camp, which is why I tailored my response to that argument. As I wrote several comments above, the two contradictory arguments are making this discussion confusing. If we were to look at things from a "not-disambiguation" perspective, then the argument "parentheses look like disambiguation, so we should use commas" makes no sense. Commas are literally one of the two other forms of disambiguation described at WP:NCDAB. "It looks nicer/cleaner/prettier/less visually disruptive" (whatever that means) is an ILIKEIT argument and not a compelling reason to move — again, I'll reiterate — thousands of articles and probably tens of thousands of incoming links. Again, we don't need a "rule to thump", but if it comes down to ILIKEIT vs. IDONTLIKEIT, then we would need a highly compelling reason that demonstrates substantial improvement to and benefit for readers. Those in favor of changing the naming convention have yet to provide evidence that the current convention has been actively harmful to readers, only that it causes behind-the-scenes problems off-wiki. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Confusing: just how it goes sometimes; if people aren't all conceptualizing this the same way, we can't make then do it, and have little choice but to juggle mutiple arguments. I think the "looks like disambiguation" points boils down to 'It looks like it means, in "Foo (season 1)", that "Foo" is a type of "season 1" and that "seasons 1" or "season 1s" are an encyclopedic category; meanwhile "Foo, season 1" more clearly implies a "season 1" subset of "Foo".' It's less likely to be mis-parsed than no punctuation at all, though either an en dash or a colon would serve the same purpose, with the former being better because so many shows already have an internal colon in their titles. A fair number of show titles have commas, too, but nearly none have dashes, so the dash really ought to be preferable (except to those who insist this is a form of disambiguation and not a form of split list, since dashes or colons aren't recognized for DAB purposes, though this is maybe really a trivial historical oversight and not a real principle based in anything – it's weird that DAB and LONGLIST neither mirror each other nor have mutually exclusive onventions, but instead just partially overlap). Arguments about implication and parseablily aren't just ILIKEIT, though they may not be compelling to everyone. If there's an additional argument about "behind-the-scenes problems off-wiki" maybe that also counts for something, but perhaps not much. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support a change from parentheticals, with preferences in the following order: "The Simpsons season 8" (no punctuation), "The Simpsons: season 8" (colon), "The Simpsons, season 8" (comma).
Parentheticals are not in common usage by other sources and not consistent with the meaning on Wikipedia: One Day at a Time (2017 TV series) is a subject called One Day at a Time that is a 2017 TV series, whereas "The Simpsons (season 8)" isn't a subject called The Simpsons that is a season 8. — Bilorv (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I like the parentheses, that seem to be the arguement of many of the people in opposition. The seasons of a TV show are not separate entities they are part of the shows. The parenthases are used to disambiguate pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlifanofmrTennant (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Monarch TV series[edit]

Monarch (TV series) currently redirects to Monarch: Legacy of Monsters, an American series, while we also have Monarch (American TV series). Should the first link be a disambiguation page, and should the third link be moved to a better disambiguation? -- Alex_21_TALK 06:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the title of Monarch: Legacy of Monsters is not Monarch; it's a partial title match. Unless there is another notable TV series named Monarch (Monarch (disambiguation) doesn't show one), it looks like Monarch (American TV series) should move to Monarch (TV series), and in turn it should have a hatnote disambiguating from Monarch: Legacy of Monsters. The present mess of Monarch (TV series) redirecting to Monarch: Legacy of Monsters is obviously WP:RECENTISM and failure to follow WP:DAB on at least two counts. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no issues with that, thanks for clarifying those details. Monarch (TV series) has no active mainspace links that would require updating, so if nobody else raises an issue with it, I'll move Monarch (American TV series) to Monarch (TV series) later and add the hatnote. -- Alex_21_TALK 07:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that easy. While the full title Monarch: Legacy of Monsters is unambiguous, the series is often referred to without the subtitle. I would oppose a proposal to rename Monarch (American TV series) as Monarch (TV series). This is a question of primary topic for the incomplete disambiguation ' Monarch (TV series)' -- the musical drama is absolutely not. Whether the monster series is PT is another question. I'd say it is to soon to tell. older ≠ wiser 14:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if neither of these series is primary topic for Monarch (TV series) -- that term should redirect to Monarch (disambiguation)#Film and television. older ≠ wiser 14:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well baby steps... I redirected Monarch (TV series) to Monarch (disambiguation)#Film and television in this edit as Legacy of Monsters is clearly not primary. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyconnick, why do you think it is clearly not primary? Monarch (American TV series) is a poorly reviewed, forgettable series cancelled after one season. Monarch (American TV series) is a well-received, relatively popular show. pageviews a orders of magnitude in difference. WikiNav shows the monster show as the top two destinations for those arriving at the disambiguation page (and I suspect the American show in third place may be due to curiosity or confusion about what this other American TV show called Monarch is). older ≠ wiser 20:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As above, WP:RECENTISM. Also, we (generally) don't do partial disambiguation, so the appropriate target is the disambiguation page since the series is very clear about its title and it's not simply "Monarch". —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is also commonly called simply "Monarch" without the subtitle. And yes recentism is a thing, but when one is nearly negligible in comparison, what is the point? I'm not necessarily saying it is primary for "Monarch (TV series)", it just isn't such a clear case, and if it isn't primary for that, there is no way that the cancelled series is primary for either "Monarch (TV series)" or "Monarch (American TV series)". older ≠ wiser 08:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus in favor of option 2.

Some editors raised concerns that this RFC is invalid because of a weak consensus on a previous one: I do not believe such an argument holds in this case. To my knowledge, the previous close has not been disputed and subsequently reverted, nor were a significant number of participants in this RFC raising such a concern. Thus, it is understood that the community, either explicitly or implicitly, agree with the closure of the aforementioned thread.— ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 22:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum:

Concerns were raised below about my close and a number of editors expressed a wish for me to expand further upon it. I will say that I do not believe in explicitly saying "strong consensus" over just "consensus": if the result is the same such an adjective is redundant. I believe that each discussion merits a different bar upon which one must determine its consensus and a closer should specify only if that bar is met (alongside any explanation required). Due to the large number of articles this change would affect just a weak or simple consensus in favor of option 2 would not satisfy the bar needed to close in its favor. I found there was strong consensus in favor of option 2 and that the consensus met what I considered was the bar to find in its favor. Thus, "strong consensus" would be equal to saying "consensus".

I will now describe the various issues that were explicitly raised with my closure before detailing the PAGs through which I determined this consensus. Firstly, I note that while Polling is not a substitute for discussion, when equally reasonable views of applicable policy contradict each other a closer must look to which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. Secondly, it is not necessary for editors to find the status quo violates any PAGs or is inherently bad for them to change it if they believe the change will result in a better guideline. Thirdly, as I mention above, I do not see enough merit in the claim that the RFC below is invalid. Comments that participants were misled about the previous discussion's consensus, that said discussion not being an RFC disqualifies this result, or the previous discussion was itself invalid are incorrect based on my reading of both discussions. I find that the partipants in this RFC believe both that the previous discussion's close is appropriate, that this RFC is a natural consequence of that discussion, and that this RFC is well-formed.

The discussion essentially broke down to supporters of option 1 (use of comma), option 2 (use of space), and preserving the status quo. A negligible proportion of participants supported options 3 and 4 as their primary choice. I thus proceeded first to determine whether there was consensus in favor of options 1 or 2 or in favor of the status quo, as consensus in favor of the status quo here would override consensus in favor of a change in the previous discussion.

Editors in favor of the status quo raised the point that parentheses are used for disambiguation and thus applicable to the article titles of television series. However, disambiguations are meant for when a potential article title is ambiguous. Editors against the status quo successfully argued that television series are discrete and sufficiently differentiated topics so as to not be ambiguous. Thus, I discounted the argument based on disambiguation. Editors in favor of the status quo also claimed those against were voting based on WP:ILIKEIT. I will remind editors that said essay refers to the relationship between subjective opinion and the inclusion of content on the wiki based on WP:Verifiability not to subjective voting on the style of Wikipedia. Not only this, but I did not find that arguments against the status quo were based mostly or partially on subjective preference. Furthermore, arguments that only mention an option being liked/disliked/preferred were not discarded just because: I discarded them iff I could not see a parallel to our criteria for article titles which includes "Naturalness". Finally, editors in favor of the status quo raised issues with the options presented. Editors against the status quo saw them as reasons why one option should be chosen over another, not as issues that prevented them from choosing any of them. Thus, this argument was not strong enough to determine a consensus in favor of the status quo.

A number of arguments were presented in favor of option 1. These included having some punctuation being necessary for clarity purposes and readability. Similarly, a number of arguments were presented in favor of option 2. These included similar concerns for clarity, the use of italics to distinguish titles of television shows (see MOS:NAT), and a majority sources using no punctuation. Thus, option 1 supporters presented very similar, if weaker, arguments compared to option 2 supporters. This combined with the fact that option 2 supporters outnumbered option 1 supporters by over three times, I found strong consensus in favor of option 2.

Editors that feel so inclined are welcome to contest this close by appealing at WP:AN.

— ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 19:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo results in article title examples like these: The Simpsons (season 8) and Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 10) and Dancing with the Stars (South Korean season 3).

There is a rough consensus (see the RfC a few thread above this one) to change away from this, but not yet a consensus on what to replace it with. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The options are:

Options
No.	Description	Example A	Example B	Example C
1	Comma after series name	The Simpsons, season 8	Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series), season 10	Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series), season 3
2	Space after series name	The Simpsons season 8	Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) season 10	Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series) season 3
3	Colon after series name	The Simpsons: season 8	Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series): season 10	Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series): season 3
4	Dash after series name	The Simpsons – season 8	Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) – season 10	Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series) – season 3

I suppose another option could be added, but I don't recall any others (dashes? maybe?) from the earlier discussion round. PS: This RfC was workshopped a bit in user-talk, with participants from the first RfC and its closer. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: I have "advertised" this to various relevant project pages, including WP:VPPOL, to be sure we get solid and wide input. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PPPS: Added the dash option, since people (perhaps surprisingly) were !voting for it despite it being not listed. But it was only added just now, so early commenters have mostly not considered it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

1 - as it is the most visually pleasing. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 > 3 > 4 > 2. Some kind of punctuation that separates the series title (and any disambiguation it has) from the season designator is needed, especially if in British cases we might be using things like "series 2" instead of "season 2". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Followup after additional research: A) There's been some debate about whether this is a form of disambiguation or a form of split long list, and the general conclusion is that it's the latter - "Soap (season 2)", in the original format, is not something named Soap that is an example of a season 2, but is part of a series of lists of episodes divided by season. Therefore, WP:Naming conventions (lists) applies, and it requires punctuation of one kind or another between main subject and sub-list identifier: Deprecated as ambiguous, hard to read ...: "List of foos A–K". The closer will thus need to weight more dubiously the arguments for option 2 (no punctuation) since they are against an established and applicable guideline but are based on aesthetic/simplicity preferences not any WP:IAR need to ignore a rule to objectively improve the encyclopedia.
B) Arguments for option 2 are also not accounting for accessibilty concerns: screen readers ignore italics, while at least some of them either announce uncommon punctuation like dashes and colons or simply pause at them as they do with commas, both behaviors being sufficiently helpful to the blind (a few will ignore them entirely, though this is generally considered a bug, and is likely to improve in the future). Thus, some form of punctuation helps many and hurts none. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, some form of punctuation helps many and hurts none. So, are you saying you would prefer the status quo over Option 2? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would have to think about it more. Both formats are distinctly unhelpful but in unrelated ways, and it would come down to personally, subjectively weighing which is slightly less "reader-hateful" than the other. I might lean a hair toward status quo on that point, but I lean away from it in not wanting to join the dubious bandwagon of claiming there was no consensus ("rough" or otherwise) reached to deprecate that option in the previous round. And Graham87's observation below (even if personal/anecdotal) tends to discount the accessibility factor (B) as being particularly dispositive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a screen reader user who has it set to say *fewer* punctuation marks than it would by default, so I don't mind what happens here. Either way it should usually be obvious from context. Graham87 (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 > 3 > 1 > status quo per my comment in the last RfC. Italics separate the title from the season designator (and parentheticals from any disambiguation). — Bilorv (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 > 1 > 3 Punctuation is stylistically and grammatically unnecessary. I'm not sure how we could determine which is used more in RSes, but my guess is that usage likely comes down to style guides. To respond to points made about disambiguation in the previous discussion: season X is not a disambiguator for TV Series because there is nothing ambiguous about TV series season X. Rather, TV Series season X is a fork of TV Series. If there is consensus for punctuation, I prefer a comma over a colon because it looks cleaner. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 > 1 > 3 per Voorts. I proposed comma disambiguation in the previous discussion that led to this RfC, and on the arguments there I am persuaded that no punctuation is equally correct, given that the "thing" being described in the article is the season as an instance in itself, rather than the season as an instance of another thing. I think this is particularly clear in the cases with the Example B and C parenthetical disambiguators incorporated into the title. BD2412 T 00:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 – The more I think about my originally half-sarcastic alternative, the more I find myself pulled towards it, but I don't think it's worth complicating the argument further. If this is going to happen, commas seem reasonable to me; the other options just feel a bit awkward (no punctuation could be confusing when italics are not present, i.e., in search results, and colons resemble subpages too much to me). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 > 1 > 3. In my opinion, 1 and especially 3 seem contrived and incongruent with common English language usage. I don't see a strong need to make the word "season" any more distinct than it would be in any other compound phrase, but if there is, italics seem sufficient. ― novov (t c) 04:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 > 2 > 3. (Found this discussion through VPP.) Of these three formats, the colon is the only one I actively dislike; it feels awkward and not aligned with how people handle this type of clarification in day-to-day usage (i.e., as opposed to when establishing official titles/subtitles). In my opinion, the comma slightly beats the no-punctuation format because I think it's more clear about where the show title ends. However, it's a relatively marginal improvement in clarity, so I wouldn't be unhappy with Option 2 either. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the status quo The only argument that has been raised in favor of changing the current method is that it looks nicer/prettier/cleaner, a subjective non-policy-based IDONTLIKEIT argument that is not a good reason to rename thousands of articles and update thousands of incoming links. The current method is clean enough; clearly separates the show title from the season number; is just as "uncommonly used in sources" as the other punctuation proposed, although that is irrelevant as Wikipedia does not follow other publications' style guides; does not cause confusion as to whether the parentheses are part of the title, since they are rarely found in show titles, unlike colons and commas; and has no contradiction with WP:AT, WP:NCDAB, or other naming conventions. The other !voters are reminded that they are not limited to the three options presented and can !vote "do nothing". InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a determination of consensus to move away from the status quo. Do you have a preference among the options presented in this discussion? BD2412 T 13:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Do nothing" is always an option in an RfC (or similar processes) — and "rough consensus" is a weak rationale to make such a major change. As I noted, there still has yet to be an argument put forth for moving away from parentheses aside from subjective opinions about which looks better. But I will say that it should absolutely not be #3, dashes, or any other unconventional punctuation, since that will almost certainlt cause confusion with show names with colons or dashes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 > 3 > dashes. I'd like to lean toward the formatting that the majority/plurality of sources use if possible, so I conducted a bunch of searches for seasons of TV shows in various genres. My super scientific results shows no punctuation being favored, followed by colons and dashes (seemed roughly equal), then parentheses. Surprisingly, I could not find instances of using commas (even when using commas to search). I disregarded instances of "season x of Show". Because it came up, I do explicitly oppose the status quo because it is confused for and interferes with actual disambiguation (no, "season 1" is not disambiguation so don't call option 1 "comma disambiguation"). Therefore, it creates false positives at maintenance categories like this one. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2, dash, 3, 1. I've made my comments at the previous RfC and other comments above preferring 2 first have already covered my position. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 and only 2 – because otherwise you'll have the very non-grammatical "For All Mankind, season 2 sees the characters..." and then we'll be debating whether we have to set off the "season X" tag in commas like: "For All Mankind, season 2, sees the characters..." I mean yes we could reword as "The second season of For All Mankind sees the characters..." but that won't be done consistently, especially in the lead where people LOVE to have the exact article title bolded appearing... (similar terrible mangling of English happens with the colon) so yes, if we are doing away with the parenthetical disambiguation, let's make things as "natural" (as in, unadorned) as possible so that the article title can be easily used in-text without contortions. Any other choice is either as "bad" as parenthetical disambiguation or worse. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 > 2 three is just a bad idea as it indicates a subtitle. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 and only 2, since that's how most reliable sources refer to shows with multiple seasons. Oppose Option 3, since the colon makes it seem like "season" is a part of the show's official title/name, which it is not (and renaming The Challenge: All Stars (season 3) to The Challenge: All Stars: season 3 looks ridiculous). Also support keeping the status quo. Some1 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Simpler is better. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 per Joeyconnick. —El Millo (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support for only 2, though partially inclined to keeping the status quo per InfiniteNexus and the fact that the closing note of the previous RfC stated There appears to be a rough consensus, not exactly a rousing indication of strong support for such a change. But if a change happens, which again I'm not fully sure I support at this time, it should only be 2. There should be no punctation to indicate a season in the article's title. Joeyconnick laid out a good explanation above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 or 3 - I will still say that moving away from the status quo (parens only) is best, but given that option seems to be off the table from the prior RFC, using either spaces or colons would match how other multipart works are named on WP and in the real world (eg Dune: Part Two or Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One). I feel the space version is more natural, but I also can see the colon version. Option 1 seems to be more original research in how seasons are named. --Masem (t) 00:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out that Dune: Part Two and Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One are the official titles of the movies; the use of the colons there aren't comparable to TV seasons. Some1 (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we're talking about creating titles that don't normally exist in reliable sources for these TV series, so we're doing some type of original research (necessary to build the encyclopedia so acceptable) and in that frame it is best to stick to how other works indicate multipart volumes and use a format that is comparable as to minimize this amount of minimal research. This is why the comma form is weird as that's something make work in a grammatical fashion, but not at all common in other media forms. Masem (t) 01:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: It's not as though sources never refer to shows by their season in a comparable way. E.g., "MCU Theory Explains Why Loki Was Strong Enough To Save The Multiverse In The Loki Season 2 Finale", stating "Loki's ability to save the entire multiverse in Loki season 2 was one of the biggest and most satisfying revelations of the Multiverse Saga"; "Blue Bloods Season 9 Streaming: Watch & Stream Online via Hulu & Paramount Plus", stating: "Curious about where to watch Blue Bloods Season 9 online?"; "'The Voice' Season 20 Results: Who Won the Knockout Rounds and Made the Live Shows?", stating: "The Voice season 20 is headed for the live shows!"); "Where Was Young Sheldon's Paige In The Big Bang Theory?", stating: "there's no guarantee that the shortened Young Sheldon season 7 will bring her back" and "The Big Bang Theory season 12 found a way to bring in Tam, Sheldon's first friend". BD2412 T 03:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I can support 2, because that's the effective format used in RS writing. 2 doesn't create an option that is not used routinely in RSes (as it would be for option 1 using the comma). Masem (t) 05:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"creating titles that don't normally exist in reliable sources for these TV series" would be adding random punctuation (commas, colons, dashes, etc.) in the titles. 2 (using the space) is what reliable sources most commonly use for the TV series with multiple seasons. Some1 (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 per above, but I would change the disambiguation from "Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series) season 3" to "Dancing with the Stars season 3 (South Korean TV series)". Tentinator 02:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. So for British shows the title is going to be Survivor (British TV series) series 3? This looks a little crazy... so I am in favour of a comma. Heartfox (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My ranked-choice would be status quo, 1, 2, 3. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 as adding a comma or colon would be Wikipedia adding punctuation that is not consistently used by sources. Having the series name in italics and the "season X" unitalicised is clear enough a distinction without us needing to manufacture one. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be 2 or status quo rather than 1 or 3. S5A-0043^Talk 14:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments for 2 have convinced me, so 2 is now my preference, but 1 still seems like a fine alternative as the italics help differentiate. But 2 is the seeming consensus, and that option is definitely better than the status quo. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 and only 2. Only one reflecting real world use. Some observations:
- User:RunningTiger123 has concerns for "when italics are not present, i.e., in search results. Ideal world, italics would be present in search results. In our less than ideal world, lots of things look wonky in search results, but maybe not so much as to tip scales as to how things in more prominent spaces ought look.
- User:InfiniteNexus has concerns for "series that already have that punctuation" — not well solved by instead adding two additional punctuation elements (a ( and a )). Should we have instead "Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) (season 10)"? Guessing "Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series season 10)" to avoid adding a dreaded comma. But that makes the part within parentheses all the more confusing. Heaven forbid somebody should make articles on the individual seasons of Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) (2000 TV series).
- User:Heartfox and User:Tentinator kind of cancel each other out. Heartfox is concerned that "Survivor (British TV series) series 3" looks "a little crazy", but Tentinator is the most correct: if the season is the reason and the summum bonum of the page, then all of these ought to be titled as "Hawaii Five-0 season 10 (2010 TV series)", "Dancing with the Stars season 3 (South Korean TV series)", and such. And here User:OlifanofmrTennant is spot on as well. Vast majority of shows have no such problem. Start with what looks best -- and reflects real world use -- for the vast majority. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment about my concern: what would be a "more prominent" space than search results? I agree it's not necessarily enough to swing the decision on its own, but I also don't think search results should be entirely ignored when a significant portion of traffic comes via search (either the internal Wikipedia search or external search engines). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 is the most elegant solution. The extra punctuation isn't necessary to express the idea; all three examples in the "2" row are perfectly comprehensible. Toughpigs (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 I thought I would like 1, but after reading the discussion, 2 is the only option that works in all situations. 3 makes it seem that the season is part of the official name. --Enos733 (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything other than option 2, which has no sensible separation between title and season (or series, for British readers) MapReader (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The sensible separation is the continued italics of the show title and roman (regular) type for the season/British series. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Option 1, for the reasons given above MapReader (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @MapReader: Did you mean to put this in the survey section? BD2412 T 16:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Surely, so I've refactored to this section, after their original, less specific !vote. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4 (in line with sports articles like 2023 French Open – Women's singles, Gymnastics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's artistic individual all-around, etc.) > 1 > 3 > 2 (somewhat awkward), anything but completely inconsistent status quo. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed - We use parentheses for disambiguation on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles. (Look at the top of this page, it's even done here.) This WP:LOCALCON probably shouldn't change that. And in this case, it is the clearest and reduces confusion and ambiguity. Which, incidentally, is the title of the relevant guideline, as noted. If the closer doesn't closer per existing guidelines, and instead closes as some sort of no consensus for the status quo, then some sort of punctuation (4>3>1). Oppose merely having a space, due to lack of clarity. - jc37 04:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion below about whether (and why probably not) this constitutes disambiguation. And the "(television)" in this page's name isn't disambiguation at all, it's topic identification that is coincidentally using a parenthetical form (topical SNGs also do this, while MoS topical pages do not; we should probably normalize to the "/" style used by the MoS pages so it's clearer they are not disambiguations). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 - I think others have made convincing arguments that for WP:CONCISE and clarity, we should not insert extraneous punctuation. -- Netoholic @ 14:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 > 3 > 1. I dislike dashes in titles as there seems to be perpetual churn around the type of dash which is confusing for those not steeped in typographical arcana. Parentheses is just wrong. older ≠ wiser 15:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 Supporting all reasonings provided previously, but also based on existing episode articles examples, such as "Glorious Purpose" (Loki season 1), "Episode 1" (Humans series 1) and "Episode 1" (Fleabag series 2); each of these are episode titles "Glorious Purpose" and "Episode 1" that belong to Loki season 1, Humans series 1 and Fleabag series 2 respectively – this is disambiguation used properly. (List of Skins episodes is another article that uses this example a multitude of times.) -- Alex_21_TALK 22:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, existing episode-article examples are not of any relevance, since this is entirely about changing from that existing format (a consensus to make that change already being established) to another format (the consensus for which exactly is what this RfC will establish). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It shows there's already a clearly set standard for what we're wanting to move towards. Whatever the result of this RFC, those episode articles have no reason to change, as this RFC only concerns the naming of the season articles. -- Alex_21_TALK 04:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that my usage may not be the same as yours (which I guess is what's being discussed here lol). But "disambiguation" merely means to remove ambiguity, to clarify that which may be otherwise ambiguous. So for example, by adding that parenthetical above, it makes clear that this page of naming conventions is about television, rather than all the other naming convention pages. It removes ambiguity, through clarification.

The problem, to me at least, is whether removfing the parenthetical standard will increase ambiguity. And if it's merely a space, I think it can. Especially if this starts getting used for other sub-topics. And a comma, colon, or dash, have their own issues.

I've been wondering if prehaps single brackets [season 12], might be a solution, if the concern is redundant parentheticals. But I'm not sure that that's that's where this train (or potential trainwreck) is wanted to be headed. - jc37 15:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How will the parenthetical standard [...] increase ambiguity? If you see an article titled Loki season 1, are there any other articles concerning Loki season 1 that the article would be ambiguous to? How would the title of that article be ambiguous? -- Alex_21_TALK 23:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are some notable shows (with multiple seasons) that have counterparts in other countries (or just other unrelated shows with the same name). We seem to be angling for "Show Title (disambiguator) • season #", where "•" is either a space alone or some form of punctuation (dash, colon, comma, spaced as appropriate for that puncutation mark). Jc37: I get what you mean by "disambiguation" in the looser sense now. I agree with "if it's merely a space, I think it can [increase ambiguity]"; this would even apply to the internal pages that are using parentheses (or sometimes now slashes instead) as quasi-disambiguatory punctuation; it would not be good for us to have "Wikipedia:Naming conventions television" or "Wikipedia:Manual of Style television" (that said, the "/" style is also effectively banned by WP:LONGLIST in mainspace). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To my eye it's a weak to no consensus in the RFC above so I'd argue this rfc is jumping the gun in building a consensus around a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. However, if pushed to build a consensus in this discussion, lean to option 1 but suggest 2 is out in front and I can live with it until the next time. Hiding T 12:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This RfC is not dependent on the previous discussion, though. It could have been initiated more or less as is even if no prior discussion had occurred. BD2412 T 04:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're ducking down a side alley that's not productive but forgive me, you're being disingenuous. It is framed as being dependent on the previous discussion and looks to build on a rough consensus believed to be established in that prior discussion and takes place in a world where that prior discussion happened. If it had been initiated in a situation where no prior discussion had occurred we would be having a different discussion. The knowledge of the previous discussion informs this debate, and can't be disregarded. You yourself have referred to the previous discussion and believed consensus contained within, so it must be of importance. A number of the opposers have engaged and offered opinions and referred to the prior debate. The only person to oppose above and not comment is User:Necrothesp as far as I can see, so there is consensus building being engaged here. I have made my comment in a consensus building effort but believe it's important and instructive to show how we build that consensus. I can't know who will read these words, but I want to show them what I think and also why I think it, and also what has happened. It's a good debating technique to pretend something hasn't happened, but that doesn't change the fact that it did happen. But like I say, side-alley, I don't see this line worth the time if I'm honest. Far better to agree the previous debate happened, surely? A good closer will evaluate my comment and understand it in terms of building a consensus. Hiding T 07:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Forgive my cynicism, but comments merely denigrating the previous close appear to imply that the clear and overwhelming majority of participants in this discussion who support a change from the status quo should be ignored by the closer of this discussion, in favor of some kind of supervote. No one here has been fooled into voting for the change proposed. BD2412 T 14:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Cynicism is fine, probably mirrors mine and I don't think we're far apart in where we're coming from, which is opposite sides attempting to find a middle. Like I say, four of the previous participants have contributed here so the consensus above has evolved. It's working how it's supposed to work, by continuing discussion. Hiding T 11:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Throwing shade on the previous discussion, everyone who participated in it (other than who you agree with), and the closer too, is not constructive but determinental to the good-faith discussion process you say you are in support of. Just knock it off, please. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note: my irritation is not so much towards you as towards various other frankly disrespectful comments made in this discussion, hinting that the closer should treat highly experienced editors like a bunch of rubes to be disregarded. It is an exercise in well-poisoning. BD2412 T 00:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not intending to well-poison, I hope that's clear. To my eye the consensus seems to be forming around 2, and as I say, I hate it but can live with it in terms of a consensus position, and if that's where consensus lands, so be it and I can see it. If others in the debate can indicate what they can live with, that will help. It's an MOS issue at the end of the day, it's something we have to somehow approach somewhat consensually, I've been through enough MOS debates to come to understand we need some sort of style. Hiding T 11:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While in this case I do support moving away from the status quo, I agree with the procedural objections above that it is invalid to claim that there is consensus to move away from the status quo. For example, there is often consensus that Sarah Jane Brown is a bad title (i.e. a supermajority prefer something other than that as their first choice), but unless an alternative title gains more popularity than the status quo, the article should remain at Sarah Jane Brown; it is disingenuous to eliminate the status quo as a viable option and force a choice between the remaining options. That said, on the substance I do agree that the status quo is an improper use of parenthetical disambiguation, so my ranking is 3 > 4 > 1 > 2 > status quo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor could have raised such objections with the closer of the previous discussion, or through an appeal of that close. Nevertheless, it has been clear since early on in this discussion that the few editors who support the status quo have the ability to express that. If you'd like, I can poll all of the editors who have supported a change from the status quo to insure that their position to this effect is not dictated by the outcome of the previous discussion. That would eliminate any validity concerns. BD2412 T 20:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far I have only seen a few people (e.g. Favre1fan93, S5A-0043T) rank the status quo anywhere but the very top or very bottom, so this is mostly a moot point; this approach is most problematic when a substantial amount of people rank the status quo in the middle. But my general point stands: We shouldn't hold RfCs in two stages, one to determine if the status quo should change and other to choose an alternative. This is why the Brexit vote was poorly designed: most likely no individual plan (no deal, customs union, Norway-style, Canada-style, etc.) would have defeated remain, but they combined to give the edge to leave without a clear plan in mind.

For a more Wikipedia-centric example, let's say that a title is currently a disambiguation page, e.g. New York. Suppose that 20% agree with the status quo, while 80% want change. Of that 80%, 40% want New York (state) to be the primary topic and 40% want New York City to be the primary topic. Obviously, the status quo should remain even though it has only 20% support! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New York actually used to be the title of the article on the state, and I was very heavily involved in the discussion to disambiguate that title, and to fix the 80,000 links that required disambiguation following that move. With respect to the 20/40/40 situation, see WP:BARTENDER, regarding such situations: "where there is substantial support for moving the hypothetical "Bob Smith" away from its current title, but disagreement as to whether the best target to which it could be moved is "Bob Thomas Smith" or "Bob Smith (podiatrist)" or "Bob Smith (born 1962)". In such a case, the page should be moved, and the closing administrator will just have to use his or her best judgement as to which possible target title best meets the policies and goals of the encyclopedia, and the needs of readers". The absence of consensus for a specific outcome, of course, is not an issue in this discussion. However, another thing that I learned from the process of disambiguating New York is this: a few months after these titles are moved, you will forget that they ever were where they were before. BD2412 T 18:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of that history as well; if New York is currently the state, then a consensus to move away from the state is a consensus to choose either disambiguation or the city, since the two are directionally the same. However, if New York is currently a disambiguation page, WP:BARTENDER does not apply unless a substantial amount of participants believe that having a disambiguation page is harmful and would rather readers see some page, even if it isn't their preferred page. (There were indeed some !voters who said exactly that, but they were few in number; the vast majority of state supporters preferred disambiguation over the city, and the vast majority of city supporters preferred disambiguation over the state.) At the very least, if making a BARTENDER choice to move from A (the status quo) to B, there should be majority support for B over A if forced to choose in a two-way poll. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2>1>3>4>Status Quo, I think the lack of punctuation is the most ideal, as it seems the most natural way of titling season articles, here, but I prefer any of the options over the status quo. To me, the status quo seems to be using the parentheses as a work around to the lack of mainspace subpages. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 > 3 > 4 > 2, per SMcCandlish this is a common sense way to display these titles in a way that's easier to read. Nemov (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Status Quo > hybrid of 1 and 2 > 2. The "hybrid" option I prefer if a change is deemed desirable (and I'm not convinced it is) would be to use option 2 where there are parentheses and option 1 where there aren't (i.e. avoid "),"). Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thryduulf: No comma-after-parenthetic problem if the season comes before the parenthetical, eh? As in "Hawaii Five-0 season 10 (2010 TV series)". Hyperbolick (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That would be fine, although how often something like "Hawaii Five-O season 10" is going to be ambiguous I'm not sure. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The original examples already show that it would be "Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) season 10". When would the season comes before the parenthetical in this case? -- Alex_21_TALK 12:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I think @Hyperbolick was just presenting it as an alternative that would avoid the ), issue. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Common sense alternative, tho. If a season is a subject, don’t see splitting its name. Like if there’s a priest named John Smith we don’t do John (priest) Smith. Don’t have to decide this at once. It’s rare enough, we can come to the new general rule, retitle everything where this is not an issue, then decide this issue. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Note that we do use internal parentheses in titles such as Milton (CDP), Saratoga County, New York. While not very common, there are several such titles. Personally I think it is silly, but that is where consensus landed. older ≠ wiser 10:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Poor example, Hyperbolick. If we have MacGyver (1985 TV series), we have List of MacGyver (1985 TV series) episodes and not List of MacGyver episodes (1985 TV series); comparing those two, we'd have "MacGyver (1985 TV series) season 1" and not "MacGyver season 1 (1985 TV series)". Disambiguation within a title is completely acceptable. -- Alex_21_TALK 11:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  And downright preferable for something like this. There is no such 1985 TV series as MacGyver season 1. Though that gives me a funny idea about creating a TV series about creating a TV series, and actually naming the series something like Foo, Season 1, which itself could lead to a Foo, Season 1, season 1, etc. And a split-off series called Foo, Season 2 that could have its own Foo, Season 2, season 1. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2 > 1 > status quo > 3 > 4. Strongly dislike the dash. JM (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @JM2023: Agree, but do you have a reason why you think 2 is better than the status quo? Otherwise, detractors might argue to discount your view. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Comment: if the current method changes, please ping me as it requires some code to be updated. Gonnym (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Examples of why 1 and 3 would cause major problems for some series that already have that punctuation:
- Beverly Hills, 90210, season 1
- High School Musical: The Musical: The Series: season 1

There isn't a good example for dashes, but if a show like Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story had season articles, there would be similar issues. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Im seeing various examples of people saying "x does work becuase this one show has a comma" or "y is bad because of this one instance". There are plenty of shows where this wouldnt be a problem majority even. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current method does not cause problems for any shows, so if we want to change our naming conventions (for whatever reason), we should not be introducing more problems. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We use parentheses for disambiguation on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles. (Look at the top of this page, it's even done here.) This WP:LOCALCON probably shouldn't change that. And in this case, it is the clearest and reduces confusion and ambiguity. Which, incidentally, is the title of the relevant guideline, as noted. If the closer doesn't closer per existing guidelines, and instead closes as some sort of no consensus for the status quo, then some sort of punctuation (4>3>1). Oppose merely having a space, due to lack of clarity. - jc37 04:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: The locus of the issue is that seasons of a show are not ambiguous topics at all; they are discrete instances of the same topic. There is no disambiguation involved. This is comparable to, e.g., the Summer Olympics. The 1996 Summer Olympics are not ambiguous to the 2000 Summer Olympics, even though both are Summer Olympics, so we don't have installments of the Olympics titled Summer Olympics (1996) and Summer Olympics (2020); the Toy Story sequels are titled Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3, and Toy Story 4, not Toy Story (2), Toy Story (3), and Toy Story (4). The only difference between a TV series and a film sequel is that TV series typically appear on television and are further spread out into episodes. BD2412 T 04:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference, in that the film is actually called Toy Story 4. The TV show is called Hawaii Five-0. Not, Hawaii Five-0 2010 TV series. That's Wikipedia internal labelling for disambiguation from other years' episodes of a show. Not making that clear, is not only ambiguous, but technically, might well get us into WP:NEO territory, where we are now inventing phrases for what something should be called. - jc37 04:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-using my above quote, "(season 1)" is not a valid disambiguation. If Mercury (mythology) concerns the concept called Mercury that is specifically from mythology while Mercury (planet) concerns the concept called Mercury that is specifically a planet, then by the same rules, One Piece (1999 TV series) concerns the entity titled One Piece that is specifically a 1999 TV series (valid), while One Piece (season 20) concerns the entity titled One Piece that is specifically a... "season 20"? That usage of disambiguation is invalid. One Piece (season 1) and One Piece (season 2) are separate topics that do not require disambiguation. Given your example of Hawaii Five-0, you seem to be thinking we want to remove the disambiguation from "2010 TV series"; that is incorrect, and if you look at the initial examples, you'll see that that's what's remaining. -- Alex_21_TALK 04:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a "season 20", is a season of a show, identified as the 20th one. It is a particular noun, which is comparable to a different noun. Such as "season 19". - jc37 04:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about seasons here, not disambiguations by year. Toy Story 4 is not equivalent to Hawaii Five-0 2010 TV series, that's not the parentheticals that this RfC aims to remove, and that disambiguator is not for other years' episodes of a show, it's for different shows that have the same name, as Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) and Hawaii Five-O (1968 TV series) are. This RfC is exclusively about using parentheticals for seasons, which are not disambiguations. —El Millo (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they are.

They are descriptive nouns identifying "something". In this case, we are disambiguating between season 1 and season 2 of a particular show. It's really that simple.

And we can drill down this concept even more, when we get into disambiguating episode 1 and episode 2 of a particular show.

Disambiguation is creating a distinction between two (or more) nouns, whether they be objects or concepts or whatever, is immaterial. - jc37 04:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except for examples like Episode 1 (Humans series 1). The title is "Episode 1", that belongs to Humans series 1; we don't title it Humans series 1 (Episode 1). The exact same situation needs to apply to season numbering as well. Or even Glorious Purpose (Loki season 1) and Glorious Purpose (Loki season 2); note how the season numbering does not require further disambiguation here. Can you show examples of where episode numbers are used as disambiguations? -- Alex_21_TALK 04:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in that case, "Episode 1" is the actual title of the episode, not just its numerical identifier. Compare to Pilot (The Big Bang Theory). Or for a clearer example, Pilot (Twin Peaks) and Episode 1 (Twin Peaks).

Don't get lost in the use of numbers. They are merely words used to disambiguate between the topic at hand.

First, we are disambiguating between the show itself and the seasons of the show. Next, we are disambiguating between the individual seasons of the show, and then we would be disambiguating between individual episodes of the show in a particular season.

This remains true regardless if the unique identifier is a number, like 1 or 2; a colour, like red or blue; or a unique identifier like its own name.

Where you seem to be getting in the weeds is whether the show or the episode or the season should be the main topic or the parenthetical. And that's something that's been determined by previous consensus as well. Whether we say Season 2 (Lost), or Lost (season 2), either way, we are disambiguating between the two concepts. - jc37 05:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: Please explain how this is different from having Summer Olympics (2020). Is Summer Olympics not a noun? BD2412 T 15:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2020 Summer Olympics is the WP:COMMONNAME for "Games of the XXXII Olympiad". So once again, that the actual name of the topic, not a Wikipedia-determined disambiguator. - jc37 17:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that thus far in this discussion, I am the only participant to provide sources containing examples of real world common name usage of television seasons. None of those examples used parentheses. BD2412 T 18:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To help sort of contribute to establishing that how it's commonly used, and to reuse some examples I put up in previous discussion since I haven't really pitched:
AMC’s Season Six Premiere Of “Mad Men” Returns To 3.4 Million Viewers, both AMC and the quoted Nielsen use a space

Game of Thrones: Season 1, colon

Find Out What’s Ahead for ‘The Crown’, ‘Sex Education’ and More, space

Yes, Chef! FX’s ‘The Bear’ Is Back for Season 2 on Hulu, space

The Bear Season 2: Everything We Know, Review: ‘The Bear’ Season 2 Changes Courses, space

The Originals Season 4 Promo Features Shocking 'Return', space

RHOSLC Fans Are Reeling Over That Season 4 Finale Bombshell, A Bridgerton Season 3 Clue May Reveal How Colin Will Woo Penelope, space

Watch The Man in the High Castle - Season 1 | Prime Video, dash

The Man in the High Castle - Rotten Tomatoes, colon

Black Sails Season 3, Black Sails Season 3 Finale Is Where Long John Silver Becomes a Legend, space

BBC One - Doctor Who, Series 5, The Eleventh Hour, comma

'Breaking Bad' Season 3, Episode 5, 'Mas,': TV Recap, Breaking Bad Season 3 Ratings, space

hell, for fun, some podcasts: MIDST Season 2 returns on YouTube, MAG Season 5 changes

It's fairly clear in common usage that the concept of "Show Name season X" is a discrete and common topic from the general concept of the show, at the very least, in SOME form in a way that doesn't require parenthesis. I don't really see how "Show Name season X" wouldn't be a WP:NATDIS option in the same way that we use the names of seasons with official names, i.e. American Horror Story: Coven. It generally feels a little obtuse to me that there's some insistence on stepping around the concept that seasons or series are a discrete unit of a show. At some point, arguments for parenthesis make me feel like it should be "Breaking Bad (Felina)" instead of Felina (Breaking Bad). ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 19:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some actual styleguide out there in the world for this, or are we merely cherry-picking examples from however some writer of an article (or perhaps their editor) blithely decided to format certain text? - jc37 20:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any cherry-picking going on here. A fairly broad sweep of how sources refer to TV seasons validates that these are the common ways by which they are denoted in the real world. BD2412 T 20:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have more that use spaces or colons or whatever punctuation, but my point isn't about style but that seasons or series of a show are considered discrete topics and entries of a work, not mere disambiguation. I'm not necessarily trying to prove that the most common format is "Show season X", "Show: season X", or "Show, season X" (though, ime, it's either the space or the colon), I'm making the point that sources do commonly refer to seasons and series as concrete main topics of their own and in a way that I think our use of parentheses or referring to seasons as just disambiguation within a show does not reflect.

I do also think that is says something that the Loki episodes brought up earlier makes a great point with the way they're titled. Glorious Purpose (Loki season 1) instead of Glorious Purpose (Loki: season 1) or Glorious Purpose (Loki, season 1). ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 20:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That they can be seen as/considered as "discrete topics and entries of a work", is why they can even be a separate article. What we're talking about is changing an across-the-board naming convention on Wikipedia. And so far, it's mostly just a case of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. Which I don't mind discussing - After all, many MoS discussions come down to being merely a matter of preference.

I think this is all well-meant, but I think we need to future-proof whtever we do here. Because episodes are not the only way that topics can have sub-topics, numerical or otherwise. And I think we are very likely to be jumping on a never-ending merry-go-round of dicussions here, if we aren't careful.

And so far, I haven't seen a "need" for a change. The Loki example is interesting, but to be fair, does naming the page that way hinder or reduce navigation for our readers? I don't think it does.

So while I'm happy to discuss alternatives, I think we should more think through repercussions of what we are doing here, and also whether not the "juice is worth the squeeze", as they say, in this case to create this exception to the naming convention guidelines. - jc37 22:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no actual style guide being relied upon, but WP:CHERRYPICKING is perhaps a claim too far. Rather, what's happening is that various commenters here are trying to rely on how off-site writers in the entertainment press (offline and online) approach this writing question, and surmising completely incorrectly that Wikipedia "must" follow the aggregate preference of offline writers. This is fallacious, of course (specifically the WP:Common-style fallacy). WP has its own style guide, and various off-site writers do not follow it; meanwhile they are following their own stylesheets (AP Stylebook, some other journalistic manual, or one they've developed in-house) and Wikipedia does not follow their style guides. The consequence of this misapplication of the "follow the sources" idea (which is something we apply to facts, not writing style, or it literally would not be possible for us to have our own MoS and AT policy at all) is an artificial favoring of no punctuation at all, because off-site writers tend to drop any characters they can get away with dropping and have far less regard for how easily parsed their material is than WP does (journalism is driven by expediency and concision, and also riddled with "insider-crowd" writing; see also WP:Specialized-style fallacy which applies to fandoms equally as to professions). Further, many of them are are also using styles like quotation marks around series names that are "foreign" to WP writing, which makes the separation of the series name from other information clearer in their material, while WP only uses italics (and not always, just when the formatting is done properly in running text). Thus there are three proposals for punctuated separation, but also some (confused, in my view) argument against using any at all. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the question has been asked, with respect to style guides, the MLA Handbook uses commas, also including the name of the series creator between the title and the season number. I have also checked the Bluebook and the Chicago Manual of Style, and both have instructions for citing TV series and episodes, but do not discuss seasons. The Latin Post style guide has instructions for identifying seasons, but just says "TV Seasons: Season 1, Season 2, Season 3, Season 4, Season 5, etc."; in it's articles, it uses spaces (e.g., "'The Blacklist' Season 3 Spoilers: Why Does Liz Go Blonde?" (headline), and ""The Blacklist" Season 3 will premiere on Thursday, Oct. 1, at 9 p.m. EST on NBC" (text). BD2412 T 13:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was disagreement in the previous discussion as to whether these can be considered disambiguation. But neither interpretation makes a convincing case for us to move away from parentheses: if it is indeed disambiguation, then parentheses are the standard punctuation used (unless natural or comma-separated disambiguation is workable and commonly used in sources); if it is not disambiguation, there is no reason to switch either, except for subjective ILIKEIT arguments. This holds true regardless of how many people are !voting for 1–4, and you are right when you say This WP:LOCALCON probably shouldn't change that. Perhaps season numbers are not quite the same as disambiguating between topics of the same name, but rather denoting subtopics. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) is a good example, and in fact, that is how many of our policies and guidelines are named. Wikipedia:Notability (films) isn't a notability guideline that is a film, it is a subtopic of the parent/general notability guideline page, WP:N; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) isn't a naming convention that is a television, it is a subtopic of the parent/general naming conventions page, WP:AT. MoS subtopic pages use a slash, but obviously that is not an option for articles in the mainspace. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's clear that season parentheticals are not disambiguators, but I do agree with you that them not being disambiguations shouldn't on its own prevent us from using them, as different symbols are often used for different purposes and it's still fine and easy to understand with its context. An example is italics, which are used both for emphasis and titles of major works. —El Millo (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't rely on italics to help differentiate, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Text. - jc37 05:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment again. I wasn't saying we should use italics to differentiate between titles. I was saying that, in the same way italics are used for two different purposes (emphasis and titles of works), we could also use parentheses for two different purposes. We are not required to use parentheses strictly just for disambiguations. —El Millo (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On that I agree. Punctuation usage is (presumably by design) multi-purpose-able : )

See also English_punctuation#Usage_of_different_punctuation_marks_or_symbols, or even the more interesting: Bracket. - jc37 05:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes. And BD2412's initial rationale was that we shouldn't use parentheses for non-disambiguation. After that, there was no justification given for why? It's going to be a tough one to summarize this RfC if we do end up getting rid of parentheses: "Editors decided in 2024 to switch from parentheses to [XXX] because ... some people thought they looked nicer?" InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This entire discussion was prompted by disambiguators having to deal with monstrosities like The Great British Baking Show (season 1) (disambiguation). Note that the "(disambiguation)" portion can not be combined with the other parenthetical portion, or the system will perpetually report it as an error needing to be fixed, the avoidance of which is the entire reason WP:INTDABLINK exists. It is impossible for disambiguators to battle the constant stream of disambiguation links if things are set up to create permanent appearances of errors needing to be fixed. BD2412 T 15:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is something I wish we could change. I just don't imagine anyone typing "(disambiguation)" into a search. I wish we used some other, more user-friendly, way to to that. But of course, that would also require a broader RFC than just this page. - jc37 17:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would never happen, because we would have either The Great British Baking Show (disambiguation)#Seasons or a DAB page titled The Great British Baking Show (season 1). That's how we always treat partial disambiguation; there's no Hawaii Five-O (TV series) (disambiguation), only Hawaii Five-O (TV series); there's no Apple (company) (disambiguation), only Apple (disambiguation)#Businesses and organisations. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But editors (who are also readers) do in fact regularly use "(disambiguation)" in a search or just directly entering it into the URL bar, because we know how our disambiguation system works; this necessarily means that other WP-experienced readers (who have not taken the step of becoming editors) also do this. That is, anything that WP consistently does becomes familiar to frequent users of this site. Ergo, suddently diverging from that consistency in ways that don't make any sense except to a handful of arguers in a wikiproject would have negative consequences for some subset of our readers (not to mention editors whose internal tools have some dependency on systemic consistencies like how disambiguation is performed). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: just want to put here, very very clearly, since it is become a point of contention, my vote in the earlier discussion was for the principal that a TV season is a complete thing of itself, and not a point of ambiguity. One can write of a show that "Picard season 3 was the best season" (which it was), or even that "Criminal Minds season 12 was a tough year for Dr. Spencer Reid." Hyperbolick (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've made the point repeatedly throughout both phases of discussion that the viewpoint that a string like "season 3" is some form of disambiguation is just an opinion and is actually contested. I can see it as both a topic in itself and as a form of disambiguation. It's its own topic in that, in your example, season 3 of Picard is a discrete subject that can be discussed and written about on its own merits. But it can be considered disambiguation if one chooses to perceive Picard as a single subject which has been split into multiple pages for length reasons, though in the latter case it's not true disambiguation strictly speaking, but a disambiguation-like consistent naming pattern of the individual segments of multi-page stand-alone list articles (in this case, lists of episodes in seasons of shows, some of which need their own "true" disambiguation). Ideally we come to a solution that gives both perceptions (all perceptions? could there be more?) of the matter something they can live with. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: Let us disabuse the notion socratically. TV series called “Castle" ran eight seasons in the 00s and 10s. There is, obviously, a disambiguation page at Castle (disambiguation). If seasons are individually ambiguous, then all ought to be listed on that page. So, ought they? Another TV series, "How I Met Your Mother" ran nine seasons. No other topic shares this name. If seasons are individually ambiguous, there ought to be a disambiguation page, How I Met Your Mother (disambiguation), listing the nine seasons. Would such a thing fly as a disambiguation page? Seems the ones bending every which way to call this "disambiguation" and deem this whole discussion as "IDONTLIKEIT" are themselves immersed in "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" -- but perhaps they simply feel beleaguered. Look at the followup discussion, which now has many more participants then the first discussion, is absolutely astonishing how little support there is for the status quo. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, even if we don't consider TV seasons disambiguation, there is no justification for doing away with parentheses. No policy or guideline restricts the use of parentheses to disambiguation, and the current naming system has never demonstrably caused problems for readers or editors. If this is not disambiguation, then the parentheses are simply being used to denote subtopics of a TV series, as in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) where (television) is a subtopic of the main Wikipedia:Article titles (which used to be called Wikipedia:Naming conventions). This is similar to the use of a slash in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, but slashes are not an option in article space.

Look at the followup discussion, which now has many more participants then the first discussion, is absolutely astonishing how little support there is for the status quo. It has more participants because the previous one was not an RfC and was minimally advertised. There is "little support" for the status quo — by raw votes, at least, but we all know consensus is determined by the strength of blah blah blah — because people are perhaps not aware they can !vote for the status quo, or they were misled by the bold claim in the nom that "consensus" has already been reached for a change when it was in fact rough consensus based on ILIKEIT and contradictory arguments.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiousity, concerning the example of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) where (television) is a subtopic of the main Wikipedia:Article titles, are there any other widespread examples of this in the main namespace? I'd be interested in examining other similar examples of our current naming situation. -- Alex_21_TALK 07:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbolick's argument about disambiguation page listing is a solid one. As for InfiniteNexus's "There is no justification for doing away with parentheses", there clearly is, namely a consensus (even if a "rough" one) already arrived at to do so, because it is easily confused with disambiguation parentheticals. "Justifications that don't satisfy me personally" != "no justification". Lots of things "ha[ve] never demonstrably caused problems" but are not the best approaches, so we replace them with better approaches. We do this all the time about all sorts of things, though not trivially. If people consider the current issue trivial, there wouldn't be so much discussion about it. I[DONT]LIKEIT shortcuts to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and this is not a deletion discussion, but a reformatting (style) discussion about page titles; subjective aesthetic preferences are naturally going to play a role in that, but that will not prevent a consensus from being reached for one format or another. As for the name of this guideline page, I think Alex 21 meant "are there any other widespread examples of this in the project namespace". The naming conventions guidelines and the subject-specific notability guidelines are all named this way. This is not actually disambiguation (this page is not a case of something named "Wikipedia:Naming conventions" that happens to be an example of "television"); rather, it is subcategorization/splitting by topic, in a page-titling manner that happens to use parentheticals that look like disambiguation (which was probably not the best idea). The MoS pages all used to be named this way as well, but were moved to slash syntax as less confusable with disambiguation and to group them better structurally, especially since the main MoS page has precedence over the others in case of a conflict. E.g. WP:Manual of Style/Television. This technically makes them subpages from the server software's perspective, though they are actually guidelines in their own right (albeit secondary ones, as the NC guidelines are secondary to WP:AT policy, and the SNGs are add-ons to the main WP:Notability guideline). The name of this guideline page really has nothing at all to do with this discussion and how it should turn out. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but no, not at all, I definitely meant in the main namespace, not the project namespace. I want to see if there's any widespread examples similar to how we currently name the season articles; i.e. where there is parenthetical disambiguation that isn't actually disambiguation but rather subcategorization/splitting by topic. -- Alex_21_TALK 09:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is List of EastEnders characters (2000) or Glossary of nautical terms (A–L) what you are looking for? Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The titling for the "List of EastEnders characters" is nonstandard to how we title things by year (e.g. Deaths in January 2002, List of 2007 albums, 1997 in tennis) and should be renamed accordingly. The title is also misleading because the article only contains characters introduced in 2000, not all characters on the show during that year. BD2412 T 19:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parentheses are frequently used to split long lists:
Timeline of World War II (1939)

List of Latin phrases (C)

List of Warner Bros. films (2020–2029)

List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20)

Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016 – election day)

Glossary of nautical terms (A–L)

List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America)

List of Eurovision Song Contest entries (2004–present)

List of named minor planets (alphabetical)

Timeline of geopolitical changes (before 1500)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga)

For articles, it is less common because we can usually append "XXX of" to the main article's title, as in History of Facebook, Criticism of NASCAR, Production of The Lord of the Rings film series, etc. I guess theoretically, "Season 2 of XXX" could also work, but that's not what's being proposed here. As a bonus, the subcats in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style use parentheses to denote subtopics as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Naming conventions (lists) permits use of parentheses for this purpose (though they are not the first choice). That doesn't make it a good idea when there are alternatives, doing it is confusable with disambiguation, and doing it makes them inconsistent with other similar articles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot of results for a Google search of HBO, "season 3"

Moreover, Wikipedia chooses names for things that don't have common names. We can't choose a name for something that already has an unambiguous name. Just look at how the producers of the shows themselves identify their seasons by name - PBS, in its own press release, titles its show "Finding Your Roots Season 10" (which looks like a great lineup, by the way); CBS, on their own YouTube page, refers to "The Equalizer | Season 3 (interesting choice with the pipe); NBC, on its own website, says "Night Court Season 2 premieres January 2, 2024 at 8/7c; HBO, on its own website, titles its shows as Succession: Season 3, Six Feet Under: Season 5, Game of Thrones: Season 8. Perhaps more telling, doing a Google search for HBO and "season 3" returns the results to the right (the appearance of which HBO does have the ability to control, just as we do for our search results). BD2412 T 16:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it basically seems that "chaos reigns", other than one general style guide (MLA Handbook) addresses the question and recommends the comma, with no other such works having any advice (that we know of so far), and actual practice just being all over the map, though entertainment-journalism practice is primarily no punctuation. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that "chaos reigns"; even the entities that do not list rules in their style guides do tend to follow the common rule of denoting a season by saying "Name of Show season X". If, as suggested by some in this discussion, we put parentheticals after that, we will generally have "Name of Show season X (Name of Country TV series)" or "Name of Show season X (Year TV series)". BD2412 T 17:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you have basically shown is that sources do not agree on a "standard" way of denoting seasons. Some use spaces, some use colons, some use pipes, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most, as it turns out, use spaces. None use parentheses. BD2412 T 21:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone considered doing a flip-flop and use Season X (Show Name) instead? Then that would most certainly be disambiguation, in which case parentheses are the most appropriate. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't flip-flop other things and have, e.g., Crown (Toyota) or III: The Search for Spock (Star Trek). What if we are talking about a unique season number? There is only one show in Wikipedia for which we have articles on its 42nd, 43rd, and 44th seasons, should those articles be at Season 42, Season 43, and Season 44, since they require no further disambiguation from any other articles in the encyclopedia? BD2412 T 21:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be as impractical as the Season X of Show, with thousand of results appearing before the desired one, but in that case, a gigantic Season 1 disambiguation page would technically have to be created with all the first seasons of every show in existence. —El Millo (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request a close? Given that there has been one new contribution in 10 days, thus most discussion having stalled, do we think it's time to request the close and result from an administrator? Or should we leave it open any further? -- Alex_21_TALK 07:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it won't hurt to wait four more days until we hit the 30-day mark and the RfC tag is removed. A request at WP:CR now would just display in shamefully bolded red. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's valid, I can respect that. (I'll admit I forgot the standard timeframe for RFC's, that was a good reminder.) -- Alex_21_TALK 07:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its been a few days past the 30 day mark so maybe a request is put in? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. WP:ANRFC sometimes takes quite a while to get around to a closure; I've seen it take a couple of months in a few cases! — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no deadline. I have no discomfort over this staying open for a few more weeks. BD2412 T 14:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're at 54 days and discussion appears to have come to a natural conclusion. I've requested a close. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's definitely time. No new activity in the discussion itself for weeks. BD2412 T 03:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow-up

@Ixtal: You wrote that there is "consensus" for option 2, but you didn't explain why or how. What is the reason for changing a longstanding naming convention and mass-moving hundreds of articles? Given the size and magnitude of the proposal, this must be a strong consensus — not just a rough one — and a good reason to proceed, not simply for aesthetic tastes. As you should know, consensus is not determined by the number of raw votes but by the strength of the arguments presented; the strongest arguments are those grounded in policy and guidelines, while the weakest are those based upon the subjective opinions and preferences of editors.

I also disagree with your assessment regarding the validity of this RfC, which was based on a presumed consensus; the word "rough" was not added to the opening statement until late into the RfC, so over half of the initial !votes were likely misled by the false claim that there was already a consensus to move away from the current naming convention. Even the previous discussion, which was not an RfC, was built on the faulty premise of parentheses only being permissible for disambiguation, a claim not supported by any policy. There is no evidence the current naming convention violates any other PAGs, hinders readability, breaks accessibility, or otherwise produces a detrimental effect to readers. The fact that the previous close was not formally contested is irrelevant and does not imply community endorsement; silence is the weakest form of consensus.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone was tricked in this RfC; people still !voted to maintain the status quo. That said, I agree this close is lacking, and I recommend that @Ixtal either provide an actual explanation of why there's consensus for option 2 or self-revert and allow another closer to step up. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone was tricked in this RfC The status quo was not even mentioned as an option in the opening statement, which many RfC !voters often only read. The fact that many users who "ranked" their preferences did not bother to include the status quo (not even as the last option) is telling, and in my opinion the RfC initiators should not have asserted that it had already been decided to move away from the status quo. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

!Voters are always within their rights to !vote for the status quo, whether it's included or not. We don't need to hold everybody's hands, the status quo remains the default suggestion for every RFC. -- Alex_21_TALK 09:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worst case scenario, we can poll all the voters and ask whether they understood that could always state a preference for the status quo. BD2412 T 18:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, yes, but the problem is that the RfC statement made a point of saying "There is a consensus [...] to change away from this, but not yet a consensus on what to replace it with." It left out the fact that (1) it was a rough consensus, and (2) no policy-based rationale was provided by those who supported a change. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InfiniteNexus, I did not say there was "rough" consensus. I personally do not believe in using the wording "strong consensus" when closing discussions except in situations where it is behaviorally required (such as contentious topic areas where editors will disregard just saying "consensus"), even when strong consensus is present (as was, in my eyes, the case in this RfC).

InfiniteNexus and voorts, I will expand on my closure tomorrow if that's okay. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 01:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. This RfC is in effect a mass RM to move hundreds of pages, so there must be some rationale to move that is not "because some editors thought it would look nicer". That is a classic WP:IJUSTLIKEIT argument that does not hold water. As with any large-scale change, a mass move would cause major disruption to the encyclopedia and must be done on firm, policy-based ground. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is done, please don't create a mixed style version. If someone wants to open a review, please do so as pages are starting to move (Legends of Tomorrow season 4) which causes errors as the code isn't set up to support two completely different styles.

Related to the above RfC change, how would titles Big Brother 2 (American season) be treated in the style? Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: Please self-revert all of your recent article moves. As seen above, the RFC closure is still being discussed, nor have there been any updates to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) yet. Your edits have been far too hasty and are causing errors; there are far more technical parts to update within commonly-used templates before articles begin to be moved. Any such moves should also be mass-made via a bot, not individually by any number of editors. -- Alex_21_TALK 11:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said — disruption. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Big Brother 2 (American season) already seems to deviate from the standard. Why is it not presently at Big Brother (American season 2)? BD2412 T 18:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because Talk:Big Brother 1 (American season)#Requested move 22 December 2018. In that RM it was shown that the name of the season is actually "Big Brother 2". Gonnym (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I don't think it would change at all. The specific name of the season is the specific name of the season. BD2412 T 19:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. The title of the season is Big Brother 2, and it is disambiguated properly as an "American season" (vs a Dutch season, Australian season, etc.) This is a situation of correct disambiguation, whereas the standard "(season #)" was not correct disambiguation. -- Alex_21_TALK 20:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, what is to be done with titles like Doctor Who (2022 specials). Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty simple Doctor Who 2022 specials Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do people really think this looks good in terms of readability and clarity? I am still unable to see how it would benefit readers to remove the clear separator between a show's title and the disambiguation/subtopic indicator. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously people do, otherwise media outlets would not widely use this format. Perhaps it is time for you to start asking yourself what you are missing that everyone else is seeing. BD2412 T 00:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Media outlets" use it in prose; we're talking about Wikipedia article titles here. Obviously, we wouldn't say XXX (season 2) premiered on ... (I believe the wording we generally use is "the second season of XXX"), and that wouldn't change even if the articles were moved. There aren't very many sites that have "article titles" similar to ours, but the ones that do have no clear standard: Rotten Tomatoes uses "Season # – XXX" (and a colon in the tab header); IMDb has no clear style; Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't have articles on individual seasons; Metacritic just displays the season number (and a space in the tab header); Fandom wikis alternate between colons, parentheses, vertical bars, and spaces. There isn't a "right" way to do this, and those who support a change did not provide a rationale that doesn't boil down to WP:IJUSTLIKEIT — does the current approach breach policy? Does it make it harder on readers? Are there accessibility problems? Does it violate our MoS or AT? Is it confusing to readers? If the answer to these questions is "no, but some editors think it looks visually superior", then that does not merit a move of 1,000+ articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Media outlets" also use it in article titles. In a few months you'll forget they were ever in parentheses at all. BD2412 T 22:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or Doctor Who specials (2022), as they are indeed concerning the Doctor Who specials, and we disambiguate accordingly whether they're the 2008–2010, 2013, 2022 or 2023 specials. -- Alex_21_TALK 20:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ixtal: Are you still going to expand on your rationale today? If not, I think undoing the close and allowing another editor to handle it would be best at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping, voorts. Apologies for the delay. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 19:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the logic is sound and the logistics of the change should be discussed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping voorts and InfiniteNexus that the expanded close rationale is now present. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 21:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A very good close, in my opinion. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a light novel. I mean that as a compliment. BD2412 T 04:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 10:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow for enough time to update guidelines, templates and modules to adjust for the new style and then let a bot move all pages at once. Moving pages already will cause needless issues. There is no rush to move these today. Gonnym (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ixtal, thank you for elaborating, this was the sort of explanation that should have been given in the initial close. Regarding your point on ILIKEIT, the essay being referred to is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT; ILIKEIT is sometimes used as a shorthand. I will now ping the other editors who raised concerns with the validity of this RfC for their thoughts: @Jc37, Hiding, and King of Hearts. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical updates

The following is a beginning list of all update that will need to follow:

Done Update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)
Done Create a list of all articles where the title matches the format "%((season|series) [0-9]+%)" via an approved bot, including the mainspace and draftspace. The three primary formatting changes are:
- The Simpsons (season 8) ➜ The Simpsons season 8
- Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 10) ➜ Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) season 10
- Dancing with the Stars (South Korean season 3) ➜ Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series) season 3
- Full list of moves listed at User:Alex 21/sandbox/NCTV
Done Create another list of all articles that include ((Infobox television season)) that aren't in the above list (i.e. season articles with non-season based disambiguation), and determine what to do with each of these articles
Done Update ((Infobox television season)) ( Done) and ((Infobox television episode)) ( Done) to format based on the new title format
Done Move all articles in the first list, and approved articles from the second list.
Done Update usages of ((Episode list/sublist))
Update all links to the articles in the first list, including those in ((main)) and ((see also)), across all namespaces.
1. Important to update links from navigation templates such as Template:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., as redirect links aren't bolded.
~~Update ((DISPLAYTITLE))~~
Done Create a list of categories such as Category:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 5) episodes.
- Full list of categories listed at User:Alex 21/sandbox/NCTV/2
Move categories in list to new name style (Category:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 5 episodes).
Fix ((Article history)) GAN links (like this).
Done Fix ((IMDb episodes)).
Done Add |italic_title=no to usages of ((Infobox album)) in articles that also use ((Infobox television season))
Done ((Category series navigation)).
((Television episode ratings)) PAGENAMEBASE caption.

This is only the beginning of a more comprehensive list; feel free to add any further updates. -- Alex_21_TALK 10:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories should also be updated to reflect the new name. Example: Category:Adventure Time (season 1) episodes. Gonnym (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the list at #2, it should include also Draft namespace. Gonnym (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All links using the old format should be retained as redirects per WP:SURPRISE as most readers and editors aren't aware of the RFC. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure you understand the premise of SURPRISE; can you quote what part of it you think applies? -- Alex_21_TALK 23:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether that is the right policy or not, there is no particularly good reason to get rid of the redirects that will result from these several thousand moves. BD2412 T 23:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They should also be retained to prevent breaking external links. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And is there any particular reason we should keep the redirects, especially those in ((main)) links above episode table transclusions (for example, List of Stranger Things episodes#Season 1 (2016)), and those in navboxes (for example, where the season article will no longer be bolded due to not being linked properly in the navbox; i.e. "Season 1" will not be bolded in ((Stranger Things)) at Stranger Things season 1)? -- Alex_21_TALK 23:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links in closed discussions should remain the same, maintaining the redirect. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how closed discussions in the talkspace connects to my examples above in the mainspace. Also the quote from SURPRISE? -- Alex_21_TALK 00:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understood correctly, they meant not to delete the redirect titles. Replacing the actual links in the article is something that I agree should happen. Gonnym (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely, the newly-created redirects from disambiguated to non-disambiguated should remain. -- Alex_21_TALK 00:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace section redirecting links, but links in articles not having that peculiarity would, at least, not be any sort of priority. BD2412 T 00:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Implementing the outcome of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles already exists too. This will definitely be beneficial. -- Alex_21_TALK 05:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has responded to the link above, willing to assist with a bot-run mass move of the articles. -- Alex_21_TALK 11:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA filed. -- Alex_21_TALK 20:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also create a mass list at User:Alex 21/sandbox/NCTV of all articles that use ((Infobox television season)) (i.e. TV season articles), and split them into four sections - the three categories of name format as listed under #2 of the above list (with their expected moves), and any leftover articles (many of which won't require any action and can be removed). There are 7,699 of which fall into the three above name categories; there are ~~9,734 (including user pages)~~ 9,397 articles listed in total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 21 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DISPLAYTITLE wouldn't need to be adjusted. The infobox automatically takes care of italicization. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox television season/sandbox has been updated. Please check the infobox with the new titles to make sure I didn't miss anything. Gonnym (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note now that the BRFA has been filed to move all articles, the clean-up will likely need to proceed as soon as possible after this (as, for example, episode summaries won't be viewable on season articles). -- Alex_21_TALK 20:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BRFA trial has been approved and completed, meaning barring any concerns, the full move of all articles is likely to proceed imminently. -- Alex_21_TALK 10:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the American Idol moves, the "season x" are also italicized. Can that be corrected before all of the other page moves? -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That will likely be a part of the infobox updates, as that is where the italicization takes place, and that particular update needs to happen after the page moves. -- Alex_21_TALK 22:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bot request has been fully approved - all articles will be moved presently, and then infobox, italicization, and episode-table fixes can be made immediately after. -- Alex_21_TALK 10:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why were episode summaries removed due to this? I read these summaries extensively. Bramton1 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were not removed, they are just temporarily hidden until this process is completed due to how the episode tables work. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When will these be put back? Anon2112 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the process is completed . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. A ton of information people rely on has disappeared from Wikipedia with no timeline for restoration. Horrible decision. 38.49.79.128 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy my below reply: "If you would like to offer to take part in the high amount of work facing editors, your participation would be appreciated; if you would not like to take part, then your patience would be appreciated even more." It's being done, unfortunately we're not time-travelling wizards. -- Alex_21_TALK 03:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox code is now live. Any issues should be brought up in the template's talk page. As a side note from someone that didn't vote, I really hope this was worth it as the amount of work this has taken (and still ongoing) is pretty high. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned with the bot changing a user-based consensus for the season article titling. What I am a bit annoyed about is that it's been changing the article titles while not simultaneously removing the same brackets around each season title from the header coding for each episode in Template:Episode table. Because of this every single summary is automatically closed off right now. Is there a plan in place to make the bot remove these as well? Removing it manually would take forever.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is already listed as a known item that needs to be done in the checklist, has been acknowledged in the thread, has been explained at WT:FILM (#ANTM ShortSummaries suppressed?), and is being worked on at the bot request linked up-thread. It seems as if there are plans to take care of it. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all of the above and future concerned editors: A lot of recent traffic here, to be expected. It's unfortunate if editors disagree with the new formatting; however, the RFC was opened 28 December 2023 and closed 8 March 2024 with a clear consensus after over two months on both the idea of reformatting the titles, and the format in which to change them to. If you disagree with the RFC, there are likely venues dedicated to that.

This was not a random act, the moving of articles, it was planned in accordance with the list of updates below, this was a planned event. Yes, there may be a few delays in the updates, but they will be done. If you would like to offer to take part in the high amount of work facing editors, your participation would be appreciated; if you would not like to take part, then your patience would be appreciated even more. -- Alex_21_TALK 02:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is changing links inclusive of Navboxes? Otherwise that should be added. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why it's a subpoint of update #7 above, updates to links will happen across all namespaces, which includes the templatespace. -- Alex_21_TALK 03:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice that it was added. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

((Episode list/sublist)) usages should all now be updated and summaries visible again. -- Alex_21_TALK 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For 7.1 (template links) we could use the list at User:Alex 21/sandbox/NCTV and get links to links on that page from the template namespace. Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a new issue with season episode categories and Template:Category series navigation not working. Gonnym (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've dome some debugging and know why ((Category series navigation)) isn't working. Module:Category_series_navigation#L-980 requires the addition of an extra space, updating it to firstpart..' '..t..' '..lastpart (I can give a detailed explanation as to why). Do we want to do this now (linking won't work for old-named categories anymore), or after all categories have been renamed (linking won't work for newly-named categories until then)? -- Alex_21_TALK 13:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can wait as these categories are still linked by their parent. Gonnym (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed by another editor to accomodate for both styles. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Template:Television episode ratings's caption based on PAGENAMEBASE is now also broken. Gonnym (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are redirects (for seasons without standalone articles) going to be moved as well? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of redirects how about episode redirects, Dancing Queen (Legends of Tomorrow) or Daddy Darhkest, contents of this Category:Redirects from episodes. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this question, they should all be updated by a bot at some point as a double redirect per WP:DOUBLE. Concerning the first redirects question, I'm not sure. -- Alex_21_TALK 10:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussions

I think there should be a Hyphen before adding season number. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too late thats already been discussed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm given a serious consideration of setting up a new consensus discussion that will have a special character in TV show season article titles instead of using space. Space is not a solution to TV show season article titles, having special characters on it is. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do it then it'll be WP:SNOWed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant These sorts of replies really aren't helping or being contributive. Please be educational; the above editor has been informed of the situation. -- Alex_21_TALK 01:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to add a colon after the title. Example: Family Guy: Season 11 Guy Without Name (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already covered this . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who uses Wikipedia all the time… this looks awful. Who on earth approved this? And that robot who’s been doing the changes have messed up every single article.2A00:23EE:1518:63D1:D000:9FF1:1E62:A007 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this new style looks awful...unfortunately didn't notice this discussion and was therefore unable to participate in it. This change is adding so much more unnecessary work to enforce a consensus that just isn't helpful to the project. The new titles are less accessible as they are relying on italics, they increase the number of internal disambiguators in titles and cause multiple titles to have less clarity and be more ambiguious. Happily888 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really wish I had seen this discussion earlier as I would have strongly discouraged the use of Italics for the same reason. Italics are a massive accessibility issue. Not just because of the reasons mentioned by @Happily888 but also for users with disability access needs like myself who rely on certain tools to access online spaces. It's an unnecessary complication that adds no value to the Season titles. Racheal Emilin (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does that change the title of an article being, for example Attack on Titan season 1? The subject of that article, without italics, remains exactly what it's meant to be. -- Alex_21_TALK 09:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, punctuation changes how things are read and helps discern what is and isn't part of a title: "Chicago (musical)" or "Chicago musical" don't read the same as "Chicago musical", "NCIS (TV series)" or "NCIS TV series" isn't the same as "NCIS TV series", and "Georgia (country)" doesn't make as much sense when titled as "Georgia country". Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the title of those are quite literally just Chicago, or just NCIS; we then disambiguate what exactly it is through the parenthesis and thus how it's different to anything else called that. By that example, Game of Thrones (season 2) describes Game of Thrones's second season as being something that is (again) titled literally just Game of Thrones, that is a "season 2" as opposed to a "TV series" - that makes no sense. It's the second season of an entity called Game of Thrones, so it's a subset of something else, not an identically titled entity, thus disambiguation does not apply correctly. -- Alex_21_TALK 10:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not satisfied with the mass move. I'm not too happy with the mass move. I think it should either a status quo or a colon. Without special characters for TV show seasons is not acceptable. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again there was already a discussion on this . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having space on TV show season article title is inconsistent. Special characters like the Parentheses are there for consistency reasons and that RFC has affected the consistency of it. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the mass move has been completed, all articles are consistent with one another, and all match the title of their parent article. -- Alex_21_TALK 00:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having space on TV show season articles is not consistent with the grammar of it. That is a problem you should've thought about. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're posting the same issues in multiple locations. Stick to one. -- Alex_21_TALK 04:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should we use "(serial)" or "(TV serial)"?[edit]

Both disambiguators "(serial)" and "(TV serial)" are in titles for various articles, see a title search for "(TV serial)" and a title search for "(serial)" for reference. In the NCTV guideline's current state, the mentioned use is "(serial)", but most articles which are located at titles with "(serial)" instead of "(TV serial)" seem to be about film serials, and actually pertain to title conventions that are covered by WP:NCFILM.

So, in regards to TV serials, which disambiguator should be the standard? Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me the difference between a TV serial and a TV series? Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: I believe "serial" is a UK-ism and "series" is an Americanism. Moreover, there are definitely some number of shows for which the "TV" serial/series must be distinguished from radio or film. BD2412 T 14:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I may be wrong about this. I know that in the UK, "series" is often used to mean what "season" is used for in the U.S. BD2412 T 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "series" in the UK often means "season" in the US. But that distinction isn't important to this question, which is about the word "serial". Toughpigs (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If "serial" doesn't mean anything different in the UK, then we should be using "TV serial" wherever we are delineating a serial that is on TV. BD2412 T 19:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In British English, the answer is that a ‘series’ is a series of programmes where each programme stands alone - for example a game show, wildlife documentary, or a drama where there’s a separate self-contained and completed story every episode, whereas a ‘serial’ is (usually a drama) where the storyline continues from one episode to another - i.e. the principal storyline arc runs across the entire season (US) or series (UK), such that watching a single episode would be like reading the middle chapter of a book. Like, for example, Poldark, or War and Peace. The distinction becomes blurred in series that have both a longer storyline and self-contained episodes, like Secret Army, or Blakes Seven; in my judgement they'd both be considered serials due to the longer storyline, but each episode wraps up a story and you could drop into the middle and have a fulfilling view, although you might not fully understand the context right away. All these comments apply to TV; I don’t believe the term ‘serial’ is really used in British English in a film context. MapReader (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you have said. In South Africa a preview of an upcoming film shown before the main film is called a trailer. Serial is also understood to be a single story told in multiple episodes e.g. at 2000 every Tuesday evening All British produced shows use series and not season e.g. The Sarah Jane Adventures, Atlantis. All American produced TV series such as Supergirl, The Flash that are released in South Africa and the UK (DVD Region 2) use Season in their titles. In my view the distinction between Series and Season is important and should be kept. PhilipGray123 (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in practice we're using "(serial)" for film serials (Flash Gordon (serial), Congo Bill (serial)) and "(TV serial)" for television (Quatermass (TV serial), The Hound of the Baskervilles (TV serial)). I can't find any examples of a non-redirect page that currently uses "(serial)" for television. This may be an example of policy needing to catch up to practice. I'd suggest updating the policy to specify "(TV serial)" and fix any outliers, if there are any. Toughpigs (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to rephrase and put the question again, to allow for both American and British English terminology. MapReader (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The British/American question was based on an error. There's no difference in the British vs American definition of the word "serial". Toughpigs (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the above explanations (and I'm sure I'm in the minority but it's still worth stating the obvious), I don't really see any merit in continuing using "serial" or "TV serial". NCTV has very little variation in the types of disambiguation it has for standard television shows (there used to be much more). "TV series", "TV programme" or "miniseries" should be enough to handle any variation. Gonnym (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, a search for "(TV serial)" shows that many of them are already redirects to "(TV series)". I think a change across the board from "TV serial" to "TV series" would make sense. Toughpigs (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For articles tagged as written in British English, that wouldn’t be appropriate, as TV serial is what they are commonly called. MapReader (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for this? BD2412 T 20:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is as set out in our own WP articles on TV serials and TV shows. There are plenty of other authoritative sources on the internet as to what the term means. Most of these imply that it is still pertinent in both US and UK English, and I can attest to the latter. It isn’t clear what the source is for suggesting that it’s no longer a relevant term in US English? MapReader (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Serial" also has a theatrical sense, and refers to a series of episodic shorts released over time that were put on before or after the main feature (their serial nature being used as an extra draw to keep people coming back to movie theaters on a regular basis); that's how The Lone Ranger and Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon got started. I'm not entirely certain what other uses "serial" might have in a filmic context, especially with regard to television. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"TV series" should be used over "serial" or "TV serial" for programmes broadcast on television. "Serial" is particularly undesirable as it makes the medium unclear (the disambiguator is likely needed because there's been a serial of the same name in a different medium). I would understand and expect any of these terms to be used in the UK to describe, for instance, a self-contained story told across three hour-long episodes: "miniseries", "series", "serial", "programme". A TV serial is a type of TV series. If "serial" isn't commonly used outside of British English then "series" is preferable under MOS:COMMONALITY. — Bilorv (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. Usage should be uniform across Wikipedia, using "(TV series)" and "(miniseries)" for the two types of shows, regardless of the country of origin of the show. Softlavender (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]