Talk:Juiced (series)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move. Non-admin closure. --MrStalker talk 00:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Juiced (series) → Juiced — I can't see why this page has to be disambiguated, there is only one naming conflict, and that's between this page and Juiced (video game), and that one is easily solved since the naming convention at WikiProject Video Games states that in such case the series should get the non-disambiguated title. As it is now Juiced redirects to a disambiguation page which is totally unlogical. —MrStalker talk 23:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose There is no consensus that the series should be the non-dismabiguated title. My person opinion is that teh article on the series should NEVER be the non-disambigauted title (i.e. Castlevania should be on the first game in the series, not the series in general).  TJ   Spyke   00:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ehm, yes there is: WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. --MrStalker talk 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your assertion is incorrect, there is nothing in the linked guidelines to suggest this, there is no consensus over which article should exist at the unambiguated location. The last relevant discussion I found was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive22. For every Final Fantasy, there's a Quake. - hahnch e n 03:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * MrStalker, the link you provided actually argues AGAINST your move request: "For video game series: Disambiguate by appending "(series)", or, if necessary, "(video game series)". The former is preferable". That basically says that if a video game name and a video game series have the same name, the series should be disambiguated with "(series)". Generally you don't want to provide sources that go against your position.  TJ   Spyke   03:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * TJ Spyke, perhaps you should read the whole guideline before running of cheering and taunting me. Perhaps you should to, Hahnchen. The guideline clearly states: "For conflicts between a series and the first game in the same series when no other naming conflicts exist: Disambiguate the article about the first game and let the series article be non-disambiguated." --MrStalker talk 10:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but the guideline is fucking wrong. - hahnch e n 12:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, that solves everything then! --MrStalker talk 12:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm afraid that your viewpoint is too narrow in this instance. The guideline you cited refers to disambiguating between games and series, but does not address other naming conflicts apart from video games. Juiced currently redirects to Juiced (disambiguation). I don't see a case for the series being notable enough to be considered the primary result of a search, especially considering the recent release of the Mitchell Report and renewed interest in Canseco's book. Caknuck (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mitchell Report what? Censeco who? Well, that explains it, because I don't give a squat about baseball. Still I can't see any other naming conflicts, because the title of Canseco's book is long as hell and don't conflict with the video game (series) just because it begins with the same word. Same goes for the so-called Juiced ball theory. --MrStalker talk 16:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

I honestly can't see where the problem is. The guideline is perfectly clear. If there are any problems with that, take it on the guideline's talk page. Until the guideline is changed this article should be located at the page Juiced. --MrStalker talk 13:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Caknuck has now informed me of another (unrelated to the first discussion above) guideline, which I wasn't aware, that apparently states that search terms are more important in terms of naming then official titles. Thus I withdraw my request. --MrStalker talk 00:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.