Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 11

Country specific series naming convention
Is there a defined naming convention for two country specific series with the same name? For example, "Title (U.S. TV series)" and "Title (UK TV series)" appears to be clearly defined in the "WP:NC-TV" section. However, what about for Australia, Mexico, The Netherlands? Is it "Title (Australia TV series)" or "Title (Australian TV series)"; "Title (Mexican TV series)" or "Title (Mexico TV series)"; "Title (Netherlands TV series)" or "Title (The Netherlands TV series)" or "Title (Dutch TV series)". The abbreviations "U.S." and "UK" are for "United States" and "United Kingdom", so I would assume it would be "Australia", "Mexico" and "Netherlands"/"The Netherlands". I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I didn't find anything right away. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably has not been addressed before and your assumption seems logical, though, to be concise, I would considering using the international 2-letter abbreviation for each of these countries as well... AU, MX, NL, ... Since it does seem to be unchartered territory be bold, do your best, then come back here and document what you did by expanding the relevant section. If anyone objects, that's the best way to get their attention.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

When an episode changes its name - opinions required
Hi all,

I'm offering a WP:Third opinion to a discussion at Talk:List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes. An episode of this programme originally aired as "Showgirls" but seems to have since been renamed as "Show & Tell". There is a debate as to how to list the episode and help from editors with some experience of this would be very welcome. Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Proper article name
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television regarding the proper titling of ECW on Syfy and WWE Friday Night SmackDown. Additional input from editors (especially those well versed in TV show naming conventions) is requested so that we can get a more definitive answer on this scenario. Thanks.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The simple fact is this: whatever they call a show IS its name! I am not disputing that SmackDown's or ECW's name is "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" or "ECW on Syfy" in the US. That's a plain and simple fact. I can't contest that. However, what you cannot contest is that the names of these shows are in fact "WWE SmackDown" and "ECW" in Australia, Canada, and the UK because its just what these stations and the WWE decided to call the shows in those countries. Whatever these shows are called in Non-English speaking countries (which also just so happens to be simply "WWE SmackDown" and "ECW") is irrelevant because this is the English Wikipedia. The other Wikis can take care of that issue. So yes "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" and "ECW on Syfy" IS what the shows are called in the US and those are their official names in the US. The same cannot be said however in the UK, Canada, or Australia for the simple fact that the official names of these shows there are "WWE SmackDown" and "ECW".


 * To help you better understand the logic, again I use this example: "ECW on Syfy" doesn't air in Canada or anywhere else in the world, "ECW" does, and "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" doesn't air in the UK or anywhere else in the world, "WWE SmackDown" does. "ECW on Syfy" and "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" air in the US. Get it?


 * Because this is the English Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia, the common names should be used, those being "WWE SmackDown" and "ECW"
 * That is my argument.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 17:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is all WWE's fault! (literally) They have differing names for their programs..
 * ECW at WWE.com -- click the next button and see the second panel which states Don't miss ECW on Syfy this week
 * List of TV Shows at WWE.com -- The official names of the shows. (Raw, ECW on Sci Fi [the former name], and Friday Night SmackDown)
 * SmackDown at WWE.com -- You could contest how SmackDown is just called SmackDown here
 * Events at WWE Corporate -- The shows are called (Monday Night RAW, Friday Night SmackDown, and ECW)
 * Television at WWE.com -- You could contest this as well as they are called (RAW, SmackDown, and ECW)-- T ru  c o   503 17:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument isn't about what WWE calls their shows in the US. Its about the most common name used. Everywhere else in the world including all other English speaking countries WWE and TV Stations refer to the shows specifically as "WWE Raw" "ECW" and "WWE SmackDown." So therefore, these are the common names and this is what the articles should be named to. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 17:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean look let me put it this way. You are appearantly trying to prove the point that "Friday Night SmackDown" and "ECW on Syfy" are the undisputed and unquestionable official names of the show, but you just now stated that WWE literally has differing names for their programs! So in short, you just proved that you can't prove the point you're trying to prove. So what are you doing? -- Unquestionable Truth -- 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How hurtful, I was just pointing out the many names that WWE has for their programs. The corporate website, would IMO, show the international name. I'm trying to prove no point, I just wanted to mention the many names for each program that WWE puts out there.-- T ru  c o   503 19:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please... Then how can you prove "Friday Night SmackDown" and "ECW on Sify" are the undisputed official names if you just gave that argument? If the shows are named "WWE SmackDown" and "ECW" in the rest of the world and you can't prove what their single final name are in the US then it seems you just lost your main argument. I mean its Debating 101 and argument-wise you just shot yourself in the foot by proving yourself wrong. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 20:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You honestly have issues, take a breather. I'm not trying to prove that, anymore I presume since the argument now is whether to use international names or US-based names, so all I did was come and place links that show the names of the programs of how WWE has it here in the US, except for the Corporate one since they only have 1 corporate site so that could be taken as the international name. Calm down, you're getting worked up over something so small, its Wikipedia not the Presidential campaign. -- T ru  c o   503 22:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so far we've established that the US names are ECW on Syfy and WWE Friday Night Smackdown. I question, what are the articles really about? Are they about the TV shows or the brands? They should be about the brands, if not then maybe they should be broken off and the brands on mentioned in the brand extension. As I mentioned at WT:TV, the articles should be about the brands then about the shows. The shows and brands common names are Raw, SmackDown, and ECW. So they should be named WWE Raw, WWE SmackDown, and WWE ECW after they are changed to the format I just suggested. Why link the brand to an article mainly about the TV show?-- Will C  07:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, as brands and television shows, they are closely related and some information relies on the other and overlaps the other as well. If we had separate articles, the information would be incomplete in each article. I do think that the formatting of the article should be changed a bit, to state the history as a television program and then as the brand. Nothing should go into the WWE Brand Extension article, its long enough. It may be time to separate that article as well.-- T ru  c o   503 16:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering...
But would it be correct to change Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series) to Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008-09 TV series) or something like that, as they are premiering a new season? Just wondering. Abce2 | This is  not a test  21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not necessary. Year of first release is typically enough, and the year is only indicated when there are two TV series of the same name. Jay32183 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Abce2 | This is  not a test  18:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguous fictional character articles
I am trying to figure out the best standard for handling disambiguous articles on fictional characters, and neither here nor WP:NCP seem to address this. Any help pointing in the right direction would be appreciated.

I have seen numerous pages out there on fictional characters that may be ambiguous, but do not follow a standard for the article title. For instance, there are a number of articles that fit the standard xxxxx (character) to differentiate them from the series they appear in: However, there are others that follow the standard, like episodes, of placing the television series in parenthetical: Which way would be the correct standard? Note that some of the first set, like Darkwing Duck, may also appear in other media, such as comic books or films. Jrh7925 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ally McBeal (character)
 * Danny Baker (character)
 * Darkwing Duck (character)
 * David Hale (Sons of Anarchy)
 * Gilligan (Gilligan's Island)
 * Jack Carter (Eureka)
 * Bugger, I came looking for the exact same information. My opinion and preference would be for the latter set of standards (matching the episodal formatting), deviating from that in special cases (like Darkwing Duck (character)).  Would love to get more input on this for it to be standardized.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 15:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For video games, our guidelines follow the latter: disamb on the series name, or if synonymous, use (character). --M ASEM  (t) 15:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I like using the name of the work of fiction, unless synonymous. Jack Carter (Eureka) definitely means more than Jack Carter (character). It's also more likely that there are two fictional Jack Carters from different works deserving of articles than two Jack Carters within Eureka deserving articles even if not necessarily characters. Jay32183 (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Power Rangers season names
There's a problem with the Power Rangers articles. All the seasons except Mighty Morphin and Power Rangers in Space use a colon (:) after the word Rangers - they're not supposed to have that, there's no colon in the official season names. I propose that this be corrected forthwith. I don't want to just change the names myself because people have tried that before, and they keep getting changed back. Proof: the official website http://www.powerrangers.com - any season name mentioned there is colonless i.e. "Power Rangers Jungle Fury", not "Power Rangers: Jungle Fury". Digifiend (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Episodes with no title
I was considering creating an article for an episode of EastEnders, which doesn't use titles for its episodes. We are also unsure of the exact episode number, and episoders are normally referred to by their original broadcast date. Could any recommend a suggestion for an article title? Anemone Projectors  16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * How do your sources refer to it? Jay32183 (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The BBC website refers to episodes by broadcast date (in British date format) such as "06/09/2010" . I've actually decided to write the article about a block of four episodes, which has been given a storyline name, so I'll go with that, but for future reference it would still be good to know how to tackle these episodes if we decide to write further articles. Anemone  Projectors  20:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean when listing it in a table or something. How would they refer to it when writing a full sentence about one particular episode? Maybe 6 September 2010 (EastEnders) is the way to go. Jay32183 (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Massive page moves on season articles by Mhiji
has been moving a number of episode lists form "List of X episodes (season 1)" to "X (season 1)". and I have already request that he/she stop the page moves until a consensus can be reached about the page moves. Even has expressed concern over the page moves. However, Mhiji has ignored both requests and continued moving the list articles, thus creating a Fait accompli which is a violation of the ArbCom ruling at Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. Looking through the archives of WT:NC-TV, I can find no discussion about this particular topic, other than when an editor boldly inserted it into the guideline.[D] However, this addition never did reflect actual practice. something that a guidelines should. I have expressed to Mhiji that such page moves need to be discussed first to gain a consensus before they can continue. Unfortunately, their edit history since the notices shows no willingness to cease the page moves until a consensus is reached. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I rarely, if ever, come across "List of X episodes (season Y)". It's usually "X TV show (season Y)" that I see. To be honest, I prefer the latter anyway, because it's less of a mouthful to read. I think if you are going to go the route of "List of X episodes (season y)", then really the only thing on the page should be just that. Because when I think of List of episode pages, I think of those same pages that simply chronicle the listing of episodes, not a lot more.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I don't think this is an issue that falls under the ArbCom case as we are not talking about merging or deletion, but simply the name of the episode list. And per a recent discussion on lists in general (not just episode lists), there is no practical difference of "List of X episodes (season Y)" and "X (season Y)", in fact, I'd argue the latter helps to suggest a way to make the season articles aka lists of episode more overarching.  (We don't need "list" in the title to "bless" the list as a list and avoid a deletion hammer) --M ASEM  (t) 04:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * These are lists, and therefore they should be named as lists. "X (season Y)" does not clearly indicate that the "article" is actually a list of episodes, instead it appears to be an article about "season Y" which may or may not include an episode list. "List of X episodes (season Y)", on the other hand is less ambiguous that it is an episode, leading to far less confusion. WikiProject Anime and manga/Quality articles shows a number of such lists that have achieved Featured list status. —Farix (t &#124; c) 04:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I like constancy, and also like the name "X (season Y)", but the guideline should be written down before a mass move. 117Avenue (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that is any confustion. It should be self-evident when you look at the page whether or not it contains a "list of episodes" within it. At least with the "Show (season)" format you would expect more than simply "List of episodes" - in which case I'd only expect to see a list of episodes and nothing else in such case we wouldn't need a separate season page just to list episodes (as there should already be a parent article taking care of that).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference between a list of episodes from a season of a TV show, and an "article" about a season of a TV show, is incredibly slim and vague to the point that I would say there is no distinction. And per Bignole, I think that these would overall be improved if discussed more than a list but as a season of a TV show - some may be hard to source exactly that way but that's a better metric than just dumping lists around. And if it is the case that there is a season article that does NOT include an episode list, that's a major deficiency, like having an article about an album without the tracklist. --M ASEM  (t) 04:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So you are suggesting that these are all articles instead of lists? If the are lists, they should be explicitly called lists in their name. To not call a list a list leads to ambiguity. For example List of Presidents of the United States is explicitly called a list instead of just Presidents of the United States, which is a redirect to the former. The difference between a stand-alone list and a list in an article is strait forward. In a stand-alone list, the focus is primarily on the list itself while a list on an article is supplementary information in support of the rest of the article. However, if the list is no present in the article, the overall quality of the article is not greatly affected because it still functions as an article. But the real problem is that the guideline does not accurate reflect general practice in the naming conventions of episode lists, this should be corrected by accurately describing the general practice instead of taking a prescriptive method of forcing hundreds of articles to a naming convention were there was no consensus to begin with. —Farix (t &#124; c) 05:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, this is why I pointed to this recent RFC on lists. A list-type article (as opposed to a prose-type article with an embedded list) need not be named "List of X" to be still a list article; that may be a relic of the past but no longer necessary.  Most episode list articles on WP are lists as opposed to prose-with-lists, but most all have the potential to become the latter which is much more suited to being Featured content, and naming episode lists to encourage expansion that way cannot hurt at all. --M ASEM  (t) 06:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, relic of the past? I think not. "List of" as part of the name of a stand-alone list should be strongly encourage under the general naming convention for lists to avoid ambiguity, and this is no exception. One should not be moving articles form a lest ambiguous name to a more ambiguous name, nor should a naming convention "require" such a move. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with Bignole and Masem. "X (season Y)" is much simpler and less of a mouthful to read. The main problem I have with using "List of X episodes (season Y)" is when does it then turn into an article about the season (and thus renamed as "X (season Y)"). If there is just a list, and then a summary paragraph is added to the top, or something about the plot or cast, does this then mean the article name has to be changed? And where does the line lie? I agree with Masem, people may be put off adding extra information to an article of the name "List of X episodes (season Y)" because they think it should just be a list, whereas extra information about the season would be helpful. In addition, using the format "X (season 1)" can very easily be italicised to give "X (season 1)" using italic title, whereas with "List of X episodes (season Y)" it is more difficult to italicise just the X to give "List of X episodes (season Y)". Mhiji (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And there's the crux of the matter. Mhiji made changes to Infobox television season resulting in incorrect italicising of season article names. For example, List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1) became "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)", when the title should be "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)". His method of fixing this was first to add a parameter to the infobox in each article to remove all italics (not the desirable result) and then resorted to moving articles, so the problem that he had introduced would not be evident. This resulted in around 400 edits to "fix" 184 articles. As for where the articles should be, Template:Episode list says the articles should be at "List of X episodes (season Y)". Of course, none of this has anything to do with Mhiji's reason for the moves. He's simply moving articles to fix the problem that he added to the template. After he moves the articles there is no attempt to fix any links, it's just move the article and then onto the next one. This is inappropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "he"? None of these moves where to "fix" the "problem". They were because I noticed that their names did not follow the guideline set out here. Of course at that point I was unaware that the guideline here was not based upon consensus. Mhiji (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is an infobox doing altering the formatting of the article? I thought that was prohibited, or at the very least strongly frowned upon, just like infoboxes and nav templates that automatically categorizing articles. —Farix (t &#124; c) 05:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think its prohibited or frowned upon? Italic title has been added to lots of high profile infoboxes Infobox film, Infobox album Infobox television, Infobox book, Infobox newspaper, Infobox video game and others in order to prevent the need to add the template to thousands of articles individually. Mhiji (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Example on Template:Episode list is that of List of Lassie episodes (season 1) which if you look at it is nothing more than an intro paragraph and an incomplete episode list. I would hardly make any binding decisions based on such a crappy example. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite the fun it is to wake up and see dozens of articles moved even after that user was requested to stop doing so by multiple users. (It's actually half-assed, since some shows were moved but one or two of the seasons) Article titles have nothing to with being a "mouth full", they should accurately describe the article, and these lists are lists, they contain nothing but a list of episodes, a lead an infobox, and sometimes a cast list. But nothing more and therefor are lists, and should be named so. When I had split List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes in multiple articles due to size, they were split to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes (season 1) etc., they were shortly after that extensively expanded and moved to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 1), as they came to contain much more than just an episode list. Episode list are just that, and should be just called that. The line for moving it to a full season article is usually some external information like reception or production for me.
 * The real reason why we're even discussing this is because Mhiji added Italic title to the infobox, and this created incorrect formatting, instead of asking for help for getting the template to correctly format the title Mhiji started adding no, to every episode list, as this still created wrong italics, he went all in and started moving 16% of all the subject articles. That's almost a fifth of the articles, making such mass moves is the real problem.  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How does "List of X episodes (season Y)" accurately describe the article? Shouldn't it be "List of X season Y episodes"? 117Avenue (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to be completely grammatically correct, it would be "List of Nth season episodes of Y". N being 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th; Y being the show name. WOOT! It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue though! :-p Matthewedwards : Chat  04:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * + Or even "List of episodes from the Nth season of Y"! Haha! Matthewedwards : Chat  04:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (This might be necessary soon) Here's a list of all of Mhiji's moves in the last month - well over 200, most done within the last 24 hours. Considering this user has performed so many moves despite only being a member since October 16, they are likely a sock of a banned user - but I'm not sure which one. -- Ja Ga  talk 15:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the 226 articles he's moved in the past day, about 140 of those were moved after I'd warned him against it. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency with other guidelines
If season episode lists are not "permitted" to be explicitly called a list by this guidelines, then it will strongly conflicts with other guideline, such as WP:LISTNAME, which is part of Manual of Style (lists), and Naming conventions (long lists). Both of these guidelines state that "List of" is the preferred naming convention for stand-alone lists with exceptions made on a case by case bases. Since all guidelines are suppose to be on equal footing, I don't see how this guideline cannot recognizing "List of X episodes (season y)" as an appropriate naming convention. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, because it makes no sense. "List of X episodes (season y)" does not signify anything relevant which "show X (season Y)" doesn't. Please don't overcomplicate matters. Just keep it simple. --87.78.131.28 (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, it comes down to the fact that these pages should not simply be a collection of episodes for the season. If they were, then the page isn't needed. Now, they may still be classified as a "list" when it comes to reviews because they don't have the necessary information to be a full fledged article, but "List of" implies that that's all you're getting.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Splitting episode lists into seasonal articles just contained lists is perfectly acceptable under WP:SIZE.  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It does so specifically, by calling it "List of" you say "this is just a list and not a full seasonal page". Don't over simplify thing to the extent that everything is called the same even when they are different things.  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've notified Episode list of this discussion  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've notified WP:TITLE of this discussion  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Season article naming proposed solution #1
For Lists_(stand-alone_lists) (or where ever approproate), the following is to be added: In naming articles related to a television season, the name of the artice should begin with "List of", as in "List of X episodes (season 1)", when the season episodes do not sufficiently relate to one another or when the list supports another article, and not include "List of" as in, "X (season 1)", when the season episodes sufficiently relate to one another.


 * Approve - 'cause I proposed it and ... Including "List of" in an article title emphasis the list quality of the page contents. That is fine when the listed items only relate to the subject of the index. However, when the listed items additionally relate to each other -- television season episodes that build one one another -- the emphasis should be on the season, not the individual season eposodes, so that editors are encouraged to develop the prose and not only contribute to the list. Lost (season 1) is an example of a season of televison episodes that relate to one another. "List of" should not be include in that article name. List of Lost episodes includes "List of" because it supports Lost (TV series) and essentially would have the same name as the article it supports were it not for the "Lost of" "List of" in the article name. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that an article should only be called "List of..." if it supports another article. Mhiji (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By which I mean there should only ever be a "List of X episodes" if there is an article at "X". By the same logic, there should only ever be a "List of X episodes (season Y)" if there is an article at "X (season Y)". Mhiji (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although this is a bit ambiguous - when do the season episodes "not sufficiently relate to one another"? All episodes in a season will be related in some way. At what point is this sufficient? Mhiji (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? Lost (TV series) has List of Lost episodes which has Lost (season 1) and you propose to take the episode list from Lost (season 1) and move it to List of Lost episodes (season 1) and maintain it as a list-only page which will support the season article and the comprehensive list too? You can't "sublist" to 2 pages at the same time. I could make this even more complex if anyone wants to hear my far-out ideas :P  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 17:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I was proposing at all. Doing that would be ridiculous. My point was, because of my comment above, there shouldn't be a "List of X episodes (season Y)". Just a "X" (and then if necessary "List of X episodes" and "X (season Y)"). No-one would create a "List of X episodes" if there wasn't an article at "X", therefore we should not be creating "List of X episodes (season Y)" if there is no article at "X (season Y)". Just call it "X (season Y)" Mhiji (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No-one is creating "List of X episodes (season Y)" when there already is a "X (season Y)", the issue is not creating additional articles it's about what to call the articles. Just one can be the article name, no-one is suggesting (at least I hope not), to split episode lists from seasonal articles, and thus creating two articles, as you try to suggest is happening.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed my point completely. Sorry if I confused you by using the word create. No-one would name an article "List of X episodes" if there wasn't an article named "X", therefore we should not be naming an article "List of X episodes (season Y)" if there is no article named "X (season Y)". Just name it "X (season Y)" instead. Mhiji (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Splitting episode lists from season articles is ridiculous. I thought that is what was being put forward. You're not the only one who is a bit confused by this proposal. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 18:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no proposal...? Mhiji (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose ~ 'cause this will have every article named List of F (season Q) because when there are the multiple seasons the data is supporting the collective list of episodes. Either way you slice it this proposal results in all pages being prefixed with "List of", whether they are like the comprehensive season articles of Smallville and LOST or the bare bones of Lassie. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to opposite is true. Most episodes in a season make cross reference to at least one other eposide in that season. Producers do that so people build up a vested interest in the season and the series. Most such articles will be named "X (season 1)" and Wikipedia contributors will be more encouraged to add written words in paragraph form to explain what happened that season in the series than merely providing a list. The above proposal says sufficient, not comprehensive. And if none of the Lassie episodes make cross reference to each other in a given season, then the eposides are not connected and a Wikipedia contributor would not have the relible source material to provide written words in paragraph form to explain what happened that season. In other words, if the episodes are not connected, you cannot form paragraphs to expain what is happening to them on a season level. In that case, alls you are left with essentially is a list. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Confused – No clue what that even means, "sufficiently relate"? Everything about a show is related. Going at the ridiculous tangent above, I would definitely oppose. The issue is not (at least I hope it's not) do we create additionally to a "X (season Y)" a "List of X episodes (season Y)", that's entirely unnecessary, and if that's the proposal that would be a triple opposes from me. This is basically a two step issue:
 * 1. Do we call articles that have nothing but an episode list "List of X episodes (season Y)" or just "X (season Y)".
 * Obviously, the above proposed guideline is determined based on the episodes in the seasons, not the state of the Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2. If we continue current trend and use "List of X episodes (season Y)" for articles containing little more than just the episode list, then at what point does an article turn into "X (season Y)", meaning at what point does an article contain sufficient content besides the episode list to justify a move to a full season article? For me, as I've already stated above, that's a Reception, Production, etc. section.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the "current trend". The vast majority of articles are in the form "X (season Y)" its just a few are in the "List of..." format. Just to make it clear I too COMPLETELY oppose to having a "List of X episodes (season Y)" and a "X (season Y)". That's not what I was suggesting at all. They should just be named "X (season Y)" for the reasons I and others have described above and also this then gets rid of the problem described by me below, and now by Xeworlebi above. This means that it is not necessary to change an article's name after other info is added to it (and it seems impossible to define where this line is). Mhiji (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I dispute it being a "current trend" unless you dictate what is trendy and that noöne mass-reverted you constitutes it being trendy. It is an unnecessary exaggeration of the title. How about instead of having moved the seasons of Medium to Lists of seasons you actually put in some content. Instead of complaining about the problem do something to fix it instead of cover it up. There is also the related issues that if one writes a proper season article but the list doesn't warrant splitting on grounds of size then the season article is rejected and put into a redirect back to the comprehensive episode list. Season articles are much easier to write in the present than to wait 6 years before a split of the list is justtified on size because information that could have been archived 6 years before wasn't and is no longer available. The result is 5 seasons of episode lists and the 6th season is a proper season article. Then someone wants them all the same and reduces the season 6 article to the lowest common denominator, a list of episodes. If one were to read through the history of some popular shows that have been around that long you would find examples of this. LOST came out for the better. NCIS is an example of the poor quality results of not allowing season articles until years later when the episode list is so long you have to split it to be able to edit it.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 18:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Really uncalled for, I don't have to do anything, I will choose myself what edits I will make and you don't have to dictate that I should be expanding articles. And what exactly did I cover up? Do you suggest that as soon as there is a seasons it should be split of to a separate article, to allow for immediate expansion?  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With regards to the seasons of Medium, I know nothing about the programme so it seems a bit pointless me trying to add content to them. These articles are currently in the format "List of Medium episodes (season 1)". As an editor I would be put off adding extra info to it, as the name suggest it should just be a list. If the articles were in the format "Medium (season 1)", this would encourage other editors to contribute information about the cast, production, reception etc. Surely having this additional info is much better than just having a list of the episodes? Mhiji (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While the majority of articles containing an episode list is in the "X (season Y)" format, the vast majority of articles only containing an episode list is in the "List of X episodes (season Y)" format.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If one is willing to undertake to write at least the core of a season article then sure, make it. If all one has is the episode list and can not be bothered to expand upon it then no, that is the wrong time to make a season article. The way things function now is prohibitive to those who would write a comprehensive season article from doing so. The expectation is to wait until somewhere in seasons 4-6. By that time info on seasons 1-2 will be harder to come by and those articles will suffer. Not all things which would go into a season article will have been stored in the main article's history. LOST was written as seasons pretty much from the beginning. It was such a huge hit that there was not much fuss made about season articles. Cougar Town has season articles and yet there was such opposition to my writing NCIS LA's first season article that i let it get vandalised and ultimately redirected, and it was the number 1 new show of last season with a franchise of 17 years of success as its foundation. But it was too soon to have an article of any quality. :P I didn't realise you had moved Medium (season #) to List of but once i saw that i immediately stopped all efforts at improving the season articles of Medium because they no longer were season articles, they were already just as they should be. I wasn't in the mood to fight with you over article titles. I focused on less popular new shows. I run into you at quite a few of those too. We never agree on anything. When you discuss policy that is about content that you don't deal with but which affects my contributions then yes i do have issue with you not doing any content work. There is this saying in Nebraska, i know they have it in Nova Scotia,... By the way, i added ratings to Complete Savages a couple of weeks ago. Now there is some context for saying it was cancelled due to poor ratings. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 21:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If we were to use the format "List of X episodes (season Y)", can anyone (particularly TheFarix, AussieLegend and Xeworlebi) answer my question above about when a "List of X episodes (season Y)", becomes a "X (season Y)" article. Where is the line drawn? There's no consistency at the moment. Why is "List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 1)" in that format when it has far more than just a list (there's details about the cast and production), whereas "American Chopper (season 1)" is in the other format when it contains little more than a list. Are you suggesting that Supernatural (season 1) (which has very detailed information about production and reception) is changed to "List of Supernatural episodes (season 1)"?! And does this mean whenever an editor adds just a couple few sentences to the top of a "List of..." article they must then change the article name? And if they're taken away again or reverted the name must be changed back? That's just ridiculous. Also to elaborate on Masem's point, going by the same logic, this article, Business Casual (Chromeo album) is an album article with little more than a tracklisting. Surely it should be called "List of Business Casual tracks"?!! Mhiji (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. If I may intrude... this question from Mhiji, now asked twice, needs to be answered by someone/anyone supporting the use of "List of ..." titles for some articles about TV series seasons.  Otherwise, the answer must be presumed to be indeterminate, which appears to be Mhiji's point, and apparently well taken in support of not using such titles, I might add.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment In answer to your question, if there is enough connection between episodes to allow a Wikipedian to write at least one paragraph about that season, then that article from the very beginning is named "X (season Y)" article, even if it only contains a list and even if no one ever adds a paragraph about that season. The naming of the article is based on the subjet matter of the article, not on efforts of Wikipedians to develop the article. Splitting supports using "List of" because "X (season Y)" is already used in one article and the other will use "List of". My proposal above accounts for Splitting when splitting in fact occurs. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@Mhiji To reply you question you draw when you can provide sufficient verifiable Production, Coverage/Reception contents to the point the article should no longer aim for Featured List but for Good Article / Featured Article status. Articles have to be either side of that fence. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Trout Mhiji For doing it his/her own way and fait accompli strategy. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand either of these comments. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Already answered this before the question was even made, have answered it a second time above, and will do so a third time here, for me a season article is warranted when sufficient external info is added, Reception, Production. Just episode list and a bare minimum cast list containing just names does not constitute a full season article.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That the point as long an article depends to "Featured list" to assess its quality then you must keep the List word in its title when you have what's required to be a full fledged article you can do toss List from the article title. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I cannot understand this. "That the point as long an article..." is not English.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So, Xeworlebi, a "List of X episodes (season Y)", becomes a "X (season Y)" article "when sufficient external info is added, Reception, Production"? Where is "sufficient" defined?  How does this answer the question, which is where is the line drawn?  So if there is only a list of episodes, but no article about the season, you would leave it at "List of ..."?  And the title of what the article about the season would be if it existed... would that be a redirect to the "List of ..." article?  Now, if someone wants to create an article about the season, should they start by editing the redirect, or the "List of ..." article, and then renaming it when "sufficient external info" is added?  What would prevent someone from taking the first approach, and ending up with a relatively short article.  Should we leave it like that, or incorporate the list into the short article?  This "answer" seems to raise more questions than it answers.  All of these issues are addressed, in a straightforward fashion, by Proposal #3 below.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really since proposal #3 is something that is never the case. There are no real this is the line, anywhere, at what point exactly is a episode list split in different articles, usually when it becomes to long, as articles get bigger the likelihood that they should be split gets bigger, but there is no X character limit. This can easily be addressed on a case by case scenario.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xeworlebi. The point at which an article changes from a "List of" to a "X (season Y)" article is not something that can be rigidly defined. It's pretty much a judgement call but the blurry line is when there is sufficient non-list content in addition to the list content, that's when it becomes a season article. I'd argue that this is not yet an "X (season Y)" article because the prose is very limited, most of the article is just list. On the other hand, this is an "X (season Y)" article because it has been expanded with several prose sections covering different aspects. This article, despite its name is not a "X (season Y)" article because it consists only of the lede and list content. That said, this is still considered to be a list article, so the actual amount of prose is not actually a determining factor. It all comes down to the balance between list and non-list content. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the point of creating a blurry line when it doesn't need to be there? As I've said before, we are supposed to be creating a guideline so that things are consistent. By saying change it when there is "sufficient" additional content, because everyone's perception of what is sufficient is different, we're effectively saying "Do whatever you like". That's not a guideline. Mhiji (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody is creating a blurry line, it's just there and there's not much we can do about it. An article containing just the lede and list content is a list article, and Lists (stand-alone lists) says the article title should start with "List of". However, a season article is not a list. The difference between the two is subjective, it can't be rigidly defined because every article is different. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Trout"? There was no hidden motive. I was just following the guidelines on this page (WP:TV-NC). As I've said many times I was unaware that this guideline there was not supported by consensus... Mhiji (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Still "Trout". I'm sick tired of editors creating "made up crisis" just to get a fellow-up discussion/RfC where they can push Guidelines, Manual of Style or Policies to their liking. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I still don't understand what you mean? Trout is a fish. Mhiji (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not even heard yet of the Unsourced BLP Drama!? Euhhh...Welcome to Wikipedia the place where people provoke crisis to make the community move forward losing few editors along the way each time which in the long would be very problematic. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I still have no idea what you're on about. This isn't really relevant to the discussion..... But please do speak in English. Mhiji (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry i used some hermetic Wikipedians vocabularies. See 1 2. Again welcome to Wikipedia and have fun. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Mhiji (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should have used Whale. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal #2

 * If there is an overall list of episodes, not broken down by season, year, or any other metric (thus likely not including brief recaps or the like), generally for the purposes of a data table, it should be named "List of X episodes", and should be treated more as a list (per WP:LISTS, WP:FLC, etc). If the list is otherwise broken down by season, year, or some other metric, and where there is more attention to the plot elements, production and release details, etc., it should be named "X (season Y)" or a similar name.  This is regardless if the extra details exist or not.  The idea is that ultimately, if you can break out a list of episodes by season, you want to be able to discuss the season in a standalone manner from the rest of the show itself, and thus it will ultimately more like an article - this may not be immediately possible for all TV shows but it is certainly a reasonable end goal to reach.  If the show has seasons but in general the seasons or individual episodes are not notable, you likely shouldn't be breaking these out into per-season episode lists in the first place. --M ASEM  (t) 19:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Hurts my head.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Way too open to "I like it this way" trolls. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Kind of what I've been saying all along.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * kinda agree with ~ this is the basic approach that was taken before this "trend" started in which things were renamed to "List of..." Though i see KrebMarkt's point because this simplicity is what was used to start this whole mess in moving things to "List of" titles. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 21:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too complex. WP:KISS should apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The naming of an article is based on the subjet matter of the article, not on efforts of Wikipedians to develop the article. If there is enough connection between episodes to allow a Wikipedian to write at least one paragraph about that season, then that article from the very beginning is named "X (season Y)" article, even if it only contains a list and even if no one ever adds a paragraph about that season. Splitting supports using "List of" because "X (season Y)" is already used in one article and the other will use "List of". -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Season article naming proposed solution #3
I suggest the following compromise solution:

For Lists_(stand-alone_lists), the following is to be added:

This allows for regular season articles to contain lists and be only lists... the only time we would have a "List of..." article is when the list is too large to be in the main article and needs to be spunout. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny Mhiji even renamed lists like those 1234567891011 that don't have sufficient contents outside the lists to be full fledged articles. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what we're discussion here…  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Confused – Second sentence makes no sense to me, there should only be one article per season, and if it just contains an episode list is it not exactly the same as a spinout of an episode list article?  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood. Is it not possible to have an article about the season as well as a spinout article which is the list of episodes?  This proposal is that only in that case would there be a "List of..." article.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I have never seen a seasonal article as well as an episode list article for the same season, and as brought up above the idea is quite ridiculous. This discussion is about the naming of one and the same article. Example article: List of Numb3rs episodes (season 1) is named list of because it only contains a list of episodes, current discussion is about renaming it to Numb3rs (season 1).  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't only contain a list. There's also a paragraph at the top of the article and an infobox. If this paragraph was twice as long, then should the article then be moved to Numb3rs (season 1)? Or does it need to be 3 times as long... or 10? Where is the line drawn? Mhiji (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Really you're using the lead as an full worthy season article? please keep the "line" discussion together. And actually it's a table so should it be named Table of… don't overcomplicate things  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But this doesn't answer the question again. If we said, "Name the article "List of X Episodes (season Y)", but if there is sufficient content apart from the list, name it X (season Y).", everyone will have different views on what is sufficient and so then this is basically just the same as saying "Do what you want!". We need a guideline so there is consistency. Mhiji (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, then I withdraw this proposal. So the issue is about what the one and only article about a season should be called?  Why add on "List of X" if there is no use of "X"?  Just leave it at X. Maybe it will grow beyond just the list, maybe not.  So what?  What's the point in having it "List of X" rather than at X?   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment re "When the only article about a season contains a list of episodes (perhaps comprised entirely only of that list), it is not a spinout list and should not start with "List of ..."" However, if the events in the season eposides are not connected, then a writer cannot form a paragraph about the season events to convey what happened in that season of the series. Then, the list portion predominates and "List of..." should be used. You are correct, however, in the use of "List of..." in the case of an actually split article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Season article naming proposed solution #4
Now that I understand these "List of " articles never exist when there is a separate article about the season in question, I propose the following be added to Lists_(stand-alone_lists):

How's that? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Mhiji (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's basically what I was trying to get at with my proposal #2 above. --M ASEM (t) 20:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Still to open. Until you are able to clarify whatever those articles aim for Featured List FL or Featured Article FA status in fine. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still don't really understand what you mean. What does "Until you are able to clarify whatever those articles aim for Featured List FL or Featured Article FA status in fine." mean? Mhiji (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All per-season articles should aim to be a Featured Article; if this is not a likely possibility, breaking out a per-season episode list likely doesn't make much sense in the first place. Only the overall list of episodes should be considered a List-style article, and that's presuming there's separate breakouts for seasons. --M ASEM  (t) 21:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Two things. First just tell me how you would handle anime season like those of Bleach 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. Second how would you handle strong disagreement on whatever an article is a list or not. I already foresee clashes between editors and some projects assessment department over that. I'm looking for answers that will strengthen the community rather than dividing it even more. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well per the above proposal, it would be to keep Bleach (manga) and List of Bleach episodes, but changing List of Bleach episodes (season 1) to Bleach (season 1), List of Bleach episodes (season 2) to Bleach (season 2) etc for all of the reasons described above. Would you object to that and if so why? Mhiji (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Yes because those are objectively "List" and won't be any further than that. Masquerading them as sort full fledged articles won't help. There aren't similar expectation between usual articles and list articles. I perceive renaming as a form a "deception" for potential readers. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean. But how do we define what is a list and what is an article. If you support the "List of X episodes (season Y)" approach, what do we name Supernatural (season 1)? "List of Supernatural episodes (season 1)"? That is far more than just a list. And if were going to use both "List of X episodes (season Y)" and "X (season Y)", how do we define which format to use. I refer to my earlier comment above, if we said in the guidelines, "Name the article "List of X Episodes (season Y)", but if there is sufficient content apart from the list, name it X (season Y).", everyone will have different views on what is sufficient and so then this is basically just the same as saying "Do what you want!". We need a guideline so there is consistency. How would you define what is a list and what is an article? Mhiji (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Think I may have finally been able to decipher what you mean. Was your point, what do we class as a list and what do we class as an article? Mhiji (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * KrebMarkt, I don't know if you're just sloppy or you can't write English, but I have a very hard time making sense of your words. Please proofread your comments and fix any typos and grammatical errors.  But the problems go beyond that.  Above, you said something, Mhiji asked what you meant due to lack of comprehension, and then you went on about something else instead of clarifying what you said in the first place.  This is not how coherent discourse is accomplished.
 * Anyway, I too think I'm starting to understand your point. Is it that an article which is comprised of being just a list is not of FA quality and so should not be named like a regular article, but should be "flagged" as being "merely" a list with "List of ..." in the title?    --Born2cycle (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is deceitful to not name a list of episode as a list. If it is more than just a list, fine do as you please and improve the article for GA/FA not FL. In this proposal, all i can see is a free pass for everyone to do as they please with people able to rename mere list into glorified full fledged article.
 * As for my bad English, blame the fact that it's already past 11PM in France and my eyes are blurry. --KrebMarkt (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Aaaa, c'est la vie. Bon.  I suggest characterizing the naming of an article after the series season even though its content is only a list of episodes of that season as "deceitful" is engaging in hyperbole.  By that logic it is deceitful to not rename articles that are merely stubs. I mean, shouldn't the title of a stub also somehow indicate that it's not a "real" article? I also suggest that you're assuming the title needs to indicate more than it actually does.  There is no requirement that anyone glean anything about the content or structure of an article merely from its title.  All the title needs to do is indicate what its subject is, and ideally convey the name of the subject.  See WP:TITLE for all the details, but an article that lists all the episodes of a given season whose title is the name of the series with the season identified meets all the criteria, as far as I can tell.  Where is the harm in such naming? See also the excellent point made by Mhiji below.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Also what happens if there is an article at X (season 1), X (season 3) and X (season 6), and the ones for seasons 2, 4 and 5 only contains lists. Therefore, for the people that suggest we use the "List of..." format, what would we do about that? Would you really suggest doing this:


 * X (season 1)
 * List of X episodes (season 2)
 * X (season 3)
 * List of X episodes (season 4)
 * List of X episodes (season 5)
 * X (season 6)

? Mhiji (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of this we can't really use both. And there is no way you can justify moving articles like Supernatural (season 1) to "List of Supernatural episodes (season 1)". As I said previously, it is far more than that. Therefore surely "X (season Y)" is the only option? Mhiji (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with a setup like that. We can perfectly use that. And why do you keep trying to mislead everyone in making it seem that people here want to move the article Supernatural (season 1) to List of Supernatural episodes (season 1)? There is no justification needed since no-one wants to do that. You keep coming up with these tangents that make no sense, and try to mislead everyone into thinking that's what's going to happen when you don't get your way. If you don't get your way, nothing will really change, maybe some articles will change. But articles are moved all the time.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to "mislead" anyone. I'm not sure what I've said to make you think that. I never suggested anyone was proposing that. My point was that moving everything to "List of X episodes (season Y)" is not an option (that's probably why no-one's suggested it). Therefore the only two options are either move everything to "X (season Y)" or use both "X (season Y)" and "List of X episodes (season Y)". But if we did the latter a set of guidelines needs to be set out to say which form an article should use and when the name should be changed. No-one yet has suggested what guidelines we could use to define whether an article is a list or not. Any suggestions? Also I'm not bothered about getting my way. I would prefer "X (season Y)" for all the reasons I've listed, but if someone can suggest a viable way that using both titles would work I am happy to consider that. I just want a solid approach which we can use to ensure consistency. Mhiji (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving everything to "List of X episodes (season Y)" is not an option if there is no consensus. If there is consensus on naming, then let the moves begin based on that consensus. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion 1
Naming articles "List of Foo (season 1) episodes" is completely obsurd. Basically if a list is the main article on a subject then it often doesn't have "List of". Take a look at the WP:FL for trends. For example, take 82nd Academy Awards (a featured list I'm completely uninvolved with). We don't call it "List of 82nd Academy Awards winners [and nominees?]" because it is about more than just the winners [and nominees]. A season article is about more than just the list of episodes (or at least a good one is). It contains info about broadcast, reception, crew, cast. Therefore it is about more than the episodes, it is about the season. FYI, it might have been helpful to notify people at FLC who are familiar with names and are knowledgable in how they are named. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  00:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good point. Similarly, Phil Collins discography is not named "List of albums, singles and music videos by Phil Collins"! Mhiji (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually discography, bibliography and timelines are different because their names imply a sort of "list of". Rambo's Revenge (talk)  00:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough Mhiji (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "A season article is about more than just the list of episodes" I don't think anybody disagrees with that but, in that case, what is an article that doesn't have more than the list of episodes? Lists (stand-alone lists) says the article title should start with "List of", so whether we think that's absurd, there's still that stumbling block. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Not in reply to anyone in particular.) I'll use NCIS (season 4) as my example because I watch it and it's an article (in the sense that all lists are also articles) I remember as being just a list of episodes. I'm strongly in the mind that it should be left as "NCIS (season 4)" and not "List of season 4 episodes of NCIS" or "List of NCIS season 4 episodes" or whatever the preferred version is. It just goes against Wikipedia's values. We have redlinks to encourage editors to write articles when they see them. We don't remove them because that stunts Wikipedia's growth (If they don't see the article doesn't exists, they don't know to create it). Similarly, we shouldn't title the article "List of NCIS season 4 episodes" because that immediately tells the reader and any potential editor that it cannot be anything other than a list of episodes, and it can't be expanded any further. Why would we want to stunt the article's growth? NCIS (season 4) tells the reader that it's about the entire season, and even if the rest of the content isn't there yet, at least it's not restricted to just a list of episodes. The reader will know that if they have additional information about the season, then it can be put into the article. And you know what, even if it sits unedited for two years with just the table of episodes, it's not big deal because the encyclopedia doesn't have a WP:DEADLINE.
 * TL;DR: "List of..." restricts editing. "X (season Y)" doesn't. Matthewedwards : Chat  05:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we end the hypocrisy and say hello to WP:BIAS because we know that it may only happen to North America, GB and Anzac produced TV shows and maybe some Spanish ones. This is the concern for editors with a "Wealth of Editing Materials" which is without doubt the case for NCIS. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That is what my above Proposal 1 is getting at (at least was trying to get at). Wikipedia is not merely a sequential compilation of data information. When the events in the season eposides are connected enough, then it is possible for a writer to write words into paragraph form to convey to the reader what happened in that season of episodes. In that case, the topic is more than merely a "List of" and it should be named accordingly. There is nothing wrong with having an article named "List of" if the entries contribute only to the list topic and the events of the eposides do not build on or otherwise cross reference each other. However, in most cases, the events of TVeposides do build on or otherwise cross reference each other such that a Wikipedian can find enough reliable source material to develop prose (ordinary writing) about the events of that season. Even if no one ever in fact adds prose to such an article and the article only contains a list, then the article should not contain "List of" in the title. Article names should be based on the topic, not on the state of efforts of Wikipedians towards that article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two good points made above. It appears to me that some of you are depending too much on the perceived requirement to name all list articles as "List of ...". Personally, I think that is intended to apply only to articles for which the topic is clearly just the list, which is not true for any of the articles relevant to this discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "If a list is the main article on a subject then it often doesn't have "List of". Take a look at the WP:FL for trends."
 * 2) *See 82nd Academy Awards as an example of a featured list.
 * 3) *Also: Phil Collins discography
 * 4) *However, the point about Lists (stand-alone lists) saying that the title of an article that is a list should start with "List of" is well taken. But see the final paragraph of this comment for how to reconcile this apparent contradiction.
 * 5) Naming an article about a series season in the "List of ..." format discourages editors from expanding that article into a real article.  Actually, this is the same point I tried to make earlier, about a list article not named "List of ..." being no more "deceitful" (as had been argued) than a stub article named normally.
 * Right On! Born2cycle. I think we have a strong consensus on what we want (OK, at least you and I agree), but just need to hone in on the guideline language that will implement it. Basically, if a television season article can be developed into prose about the events of the episodes in that season, then the article should not include "List of" in the name. Let the topic dictate the naming of the article rather than desires of Wikipedians or actions of Wikipedians in developing the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But what is an article that can not be so developed? For example, in most seasons of Law & Order all the episodes are unrelated to each other, and yet I can conceive an article about any such season focusing on the main characters/actors that appeared that season, in what percentage of the episodes the DAs lost, etc.  I'm suggesting that any article about a series season has the potential to be developed into a semblance of a real article, and not be just a list.  If true, then none should be named "List of...".   --Born2cycle (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. I'd say the only time a "List of X" article can't be expanded is when there is an article at "X" (e.g. you wouldn't start adding significant amounts of content (apart from the lead) to List of Law & Order episodes because there is an article at Law & Order; you wouldn't start adding significant content about the role of president to List of Presidents of the United States because there is an article at President of the United States). Therefore the only time when a "List of X episodes (season Y)" article could not be expanded upon is where there was also an article at "X (season Y)", but from the discussion above it appears that is never the case (please provide examples if this is wrong). Therefore as Born2cycle said none of the season articles should be named "List of...". Mhiji (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how long it's been there but the MoS says elsewhere: "...overall de facto-standard patterns have emerged. For example, TV show season lists are named in the form "Show title (season 1)", although the present guideline would have preferred "Show title: season 1" (the use of colons in the titles of works to indicate a subtitle...)". So Show title (season 1) is correct in all cases, now lets go do something useful like adding production, cast, crew, reception info. instead of wasting time on arguing the ideological merits of such a naming system. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  12:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah! Another part of the MoS specifically says that articles should start with "List of" while that ref only refers to "de facto-standard patterns". Which is more right than the other? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You ignore that one that talks shit. Understand the MOS is not perfect and a lot of it was added by a user who felt what they wrote refected opinion at the time. The MOS for lists is a complete mess. WP:SAL, lists of works, embedded lists and then long list names which doesn't seem restricted to long names. Each has a purpose but they don't have consistency or smooth transitions as to which apply where. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  14:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you think it talks shit, the fact is that it's there, and since nobody has reverted either part, we have to assume that there are people who agree with both parts. Until such time as there is consensus on one convention or the other, both are valid naming formats. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet i was reminded of this because you Aussie moved The Big Bang Theory (season 4) back to List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 4) after it was moved to The Big Bang Theory (season 4) . Three different people moved the article since September. You and only you have reverted the moves.  and not just season4 but also season 3, season 2  , and even season 1  which by most arguments here in favour of using "List of" could still be put without the prefix. Don't you dare say either is perfectly valid when you yourself repeatedly refuse to accept one of them. And in other thoughts, there is no way to aim for Featured Article so long as there is a list contained therein; it will always end up being a Featured List. Then there is the matter that saying anything not of featured status is insufficient has a damn high bar set. Should no article exist until it is featured? It sounds like indirectly calling for the mass deletion of everything of stub. start, c, and maybe b class and directly tieing the classification of the article into its title. That something talks shit is why you ignore it. If it weren't there then it wouldn't be able to talk shit. Much like how i so adamantly disagree with you on so many things but you ignore me because in your opinion i am talking shit.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 21:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was reminded of this because Mhiji yet again moved some 100 or so articles. The FA/FL reason is incorrect, Parks and Recreation (season 1), Supernatural (season 1), Supernatural (season 2) and Smallville (season 1) are all featured articles despite containing an episode list.  X  eworlebi (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And the articles you cite as examples are articles. Yes, each contains an episode list, but the list is not the sole or primary reason for the article to exist. If a list - just an episode list or an episode list with a cast list and/or a ratings list - has serious starts of sections on the production of the season, the filming history, the sritical reception, etcm then they can be treated like those articles. But if the page only exists to house a list of the episodes of a single season, it's a "List of...".
 * And 2¢ re Mhiji's industriousness - Given the interty of this discusion, flipping 100 pages when a number of them are just lists is disruptive.
 * - J Greb (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * About 50, you're including talk pages and one's that aren't relevant to this, well 8 series. Mhiji (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You want to add the half dozen you pushed through Wikipedia:Requested moves after multiple editors told you to stop making these types of moves? - J Greb (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were also 7 done at WP:RM because I couldn't do them myself. So, 9 series. Mhiji (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Spider-Man (1994 TV series) season articles
Just a side question since at least 1 instance showed up recently: What is the intent with already dabbed lists or articles? When the mass moves occured we got "Spider-Man (1994 TV series) (season 2)" from "Spider-Man (1994 TV series) Season 2". (The move was on Nov 23.) In looking at the options presented so far, it doesn't look like double dabbing has been addressed. - J Greb (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a fun one. I guess I'd suggest Spider-Man (1994 TV series, season 2) or maybe Spider-Man (1994 TV series) season 2. - jc37 20:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it certainly shouldn't be at Spider-Man (1994 TV series) Season 2... Season definitely shouldn't be capitalised. Mhiji (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the current guidelines we should be using the format The Apprentice (U.S. season 1). Therefore surely this should be Spider-Man (1994 season 2)?! Although it was broadcast in 1995! Mhiji (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * jc37, part of the fun is if the "season X" becomes mandated as a dab. I may be in the minority here, but I really don't see "Show season X" and "List of Show episodes season X" as "wrong". Those are valid titles for an article or a list.
 * Mhiji, when I reverted the moves, I noted that the "S" likely needed to be put into lower case, so Spider-Man (1994 TV series) season 2 would be my prefered choice. Beyond that... the complexity of the dabbing leads to a contentios point. Right now, with that example, the 1994 show is the only one of four that went more than one season. To me, that would mean we can drop the "(1994 TV series)" from the sub articles. Making the title either Spider-Man season 2 or Spider-Man (season 2). But that doesn't address the larger problem for shows like The Apprentice where there are multiple seasons in more than one identically titled editions.
 * - J Greb (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion not too long ago at Wikipedia talk:Article titles about how parentheticals need to stay inside parentheses. So I dunno if having "season 2" outside the parentheses is a good idea. - jc37 20:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd personally prefer The Apprentice (U.S. TV series) (season 1) and Spider-Man (1994 TV series) (season 2) to prevent the problem described above. This would then follow the parent articles The Apprentice (U.S. TV series) and Spider-Man (1994 TV series) and be consistent with all other articles in the format "X (season 1)". Although this makes the title longer I don't see any other way to get round the problem. Unless anyone has a better idea? Mhiji (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Anything more than a single set of parentheses for use for parentheticals is simply in appropriate, and has the potential to lead to confusion. (For one thing, there are article titles which already use parenthesis, which have nothing to do with being a Wikipedia disambiguation.) - jc37 20:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What's in a name
I'm concerned that by retaining the typical convention of "List of", we would be semantically stunting potential growth of pages, simply due to the mistaken idea that lists are not also article pages.

I don't think any of us would like to see substantive expansion hindered by the page title.

Honestly, I think the best route should be: X (season whatever). Which provides for the opportunity that if that page becomes too long, then a List of X episodes (season whatever) may be split from it. But otherwise, following typical existing conventions, the "list of" should be part of X (season whatever) first. - jc37 20:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Almost a 6 of one...
 * I agree we need to keep firmly in mind that there is a difference between an article about a show or season/series and a list of episodes that comprise a run of a show or a season/series. I'm not sure though about mandating when/how forks occure based on length. While it would be nice for the life of an article set to run along the lines of:
 * Article about the show
 * Article gets to big and the season sections get split off.
 * Season sub articles get to big and sections on episodes and an episode list for the season split off.
 * But more often than not the series episode list is the first thing to get split off. And then it get sections either when it gets too larger or the show article finally gets the season sections split off.
 * In a way I can't fault this. Some shows don't have the material to support articles on each season, but they have a long enough run that a full episode list for the show is just to damn long.
 * - J Greb (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No argument here. Policies and guidelines are supposed to reflect common practice. And I think you fairly just described common practice : ) - jc37 20:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling a page "List of" in no way stunts growth of pages and I think that arguing that there is some "mistaken idea that lists are not also article pages" is specious at best. There are numerous articles starting with "List of" that clearly prove this is not the case. There are hundreds in Category:Lists of television characters, Category:Lists of Disney characters and other categories. Specific examples are List of recurring characters in The Suite Life on Deck, List of Bones characters, List of That's So Raven characters and List of Everybody Loves Raymond characters, just to pick a few. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly - and at the same time there have been innumerable arguments about list pages. And I'll also note that Featured lists are considered in a separate process from featured articles. So I think it's tough to argue that everyone considers lists to also be articles.
 * However, AFAIK, that's the current consensus. but I wouldn't suggest that that would be clear to every JohnQ editor. Something I think that's worth keeping in mind. Especially since a "prescriptive mandate" seems to be what is being discussed... - jc37 21:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh and by the way, we should also keep in mind that stepping into this territory may also take us into the "question of inherited notability of a list from a related article" debate that's been ongoing literally for years. - jc37 21:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

@Jc37 The concerned shows with such spin-out potential are near-exclusively produced in NA, UK & Anzac so i won't call that kind of spin-out common practice. In an oblique way, this is a back-door to spin-out against established consensus like no separated article between a manga and its anime adaptation within anime/manga articles. I would just love more editing brawls around Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z & Dragon Ball Z Kai. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument that "List of X episodes (season Y)" should only be made as a split from "X (season Y)" is silly at best. For one, that doesn't happen, and as far as I know, never happened. Secondly "List of X episodes (season Y)" is split from "List of X episodes", making the main episode list the split-off point, not the nonexistent season article "X (season Y)". Saying that calling it "List of X episodes (season Y)" somehow restricts growth, while a clever argument, is simple (in my experience) not the case. Taking for example NCIS (season 1), which has existed since March 21, 2009 has never grown beyond anything but a simple episode list. While taking Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 1) which was created as List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes (season 1) was, despite it's "List of" name, substantially expanded and moved (about three days later) to it's current Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 1) name. Question remains, do we name articles for what they are, or for what we want them to one day hopefully be?  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We name articles for what we want them to be one day. We don't name all stub articles "XXXXX stub" and then change them when they become a bit longer! Mhiji (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A little of both, I think. After all, it's not that difficult to move a page should it be determined appropriate or necessary. - jc37 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I realise it's not difficult to move a page but it seems unnecessary to if we have a solution which means we don't have to ("X (season Y)"). And again as mentioned above, when does "List of X (season Y)" become "X (season Y)"? Everyone's idea of what constitutes a list of episodes article or a season article will be different. Unless there is a guideline for that, this will create unnecessary move-warring. Mhiji (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That argument would be valid if stubs were a type of article, like lists, and not a type of categorization.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * @X - I was talking about what "should" happen according to WP:SS. But as J Greb (and you) note, that's not exactly common practice : )
 * So no argument from me on that score.
 * My point was that I'm concerned that (regardless of how we get there) a list page which is called "list of" has the potential to stunt growth.
 * And also, because I've seen quite a few examples of pages (and not just related to TV shows and their episodes) where those who are currently editing a page do not want it to have "list of" in the title for fear that (as has been conveyed to me - though paraphrased) "Some deletionist will come along and delete it as NN".
 * Which unfortunately, has been affirmed as a legitimate concern.
 * I just think that these are things which should be kept in mind when making prescriptive decisions on article title formatting. - jc37 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SS is about leaving content on the main article when you split it, not about naming articles, or about what articles can or can not be split. Splitting an episode list is perfectly acceptable under WP:SIZE, the single season episode list is a split from the full episode list, which still has the titles etc. but not the episode summaries, which serves as a summary as you will.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, just as noted, there's a difference between how it "should work", and what actually goes on : )
 * Hence why I think we should at least keep these things in mind. - jc37 23:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Xeworlebi - While i see your point about Buffy being expanded i do confess that i feel somewhat similar to yourself about NCIS (season 1). NCIS (season 1) at least in part exists as it does today thanks to my disagreeing with Aussie. Pretty much overwriting 8 seasons of the show has just too many invitations for further disagreement that makes it not worth improving the articles. As to the inherent notability concerns, i've seen it too. "This (Good) article may not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines..." Anything beginning with "List of" has a presumption of not worthy of inclusion to a far greater degree than without that prefix. People say it is a section of the manual of style but how about looking at need and complexity? They don't need the prefix and the insertion of "episodes" into the title. Smallville (season 4) is more commonly searched for and is easier to say than List of Smallville episodes (season 4) is. That being said i read somewhere today that it wouldn't be out of place to have a redirect for each occurrence of "List of SHOW episodes (season NUMBER)" so that would mean that both pages will or ought to exist. It comes down to which one is the redirect to the other. The reason that List of Smallville episodes (season 4) doesn't exist is because noöne has created an implausible search term redirection. Maybe we could put every single page into a single page. No category issues, no title issues. :D   delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 23:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Survey: season article naming proposed solution #4
I don't see much objection to this proposal above, and a lot of informal comments that apparently support it, so I'm going to ask for a survey of clear Support and Oppose votes.

--Born2cycle (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Survey
Please list your preference, *Support or *Oppose, for adding the above paragraph to section about season article naming in this guideline, and a brief explanation. Please hold discussions in the section below. Thanks.


 * Support. As nominator. Any attempt to define the distinction between articles that are just lists and articles that are "about" the season are inherently too blurry.  There is no need for having both a season article and a list article, so no need for "List of ..." articles.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per all of my comments above. The main issues I have, is that no-one has been able to answer the question about where the line lies between a "List of..." article and a full season article - we can't just leave that up to individual editors' preference, that would just evoke move-warring. If we could have a clear guideline as to which is which, then it might be viable to use both. There's no point having a blurry line if it doesn't need to be there. Per many of the comments above, I'm also concerned that the "List of..." convention restricts editing, the "X (season Y)" convention doesn't. Mhiji (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Frankly, a list is a list. The examples raised above such as Smallville (season 1) are good examples as to where a list stops being only a list. When the page addresses material other than a list of episodes (with or with out plot summaries), character lists and/or lists of ratings data we got an article. Having a "List of... episodes (season X)" page does not preclude a "Show (season X)" page nor editing the list page to make it into an article on the season. - J Greb (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with other supporters, a line can be open to interpretation, one naming convention is cleaner. 117Avenue (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Simply because it's a "cleaner" name for what boils down to two pages about the same thing. I think it's unnecessary to call it "List of ... (season X)" when it's just a table of episodes, and then turn around and have to move it once it gets any other information added to it for that season. I've never seen a legitimate season page (i.e., one that wasn't simply created by some overzealous IP...sorry...) that did not contain an episode table for that season. I have to believe that by default any page that says "season" in it is going to provide a list of the episodes in some shape or form.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose a list is list. Please ends the hypocrisy, as it is with the systemic bias only shows produced in English are likely to have a list of episode improved into full fledged articles. Besides this is a big back door to go around established consensus & practices like no separated articles between a manga and its anime adaptation, Dragon Ball is the first one to come in mind. --KrebMarkt (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the reasons given by J Greb and KrebMarkt. The current conventions do not preclude a list article becoming more than that, and they do not preclude such an article being renamed to more accurately describe its contents. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 07:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per J Greb, KrebMarkt and Nihonjoe. Addressing points made by supporters:
 * "There is no need for having both a season article and a list article" - Episode lists in individual season articles, whether they are called "Foo (season x)" or "List of Foo episodes (season x)" are sublists of "List of Foo episodes". If the article contains only list content then it seems only natural to name it as a sublist. ie "List of Foo episodes" with "(season x)" to identify the season. Naming articles differently quickly identifies those articles that are only lists and those that describe the season as well.
 * "The main issues I have, is that no-one has been able to answer the question about where the line lies between a "List of..." article and a full season article" - According to WP:NC-TV, which I discussed on your talk page only today, "an article that describes one season of a television show (possibly with an episode guide for that season)" is a season article. If it describes the season it's a season article. That could be as little as one paragraph (not including the lede). It's a judgement call, but we have to make those all the time.
 * "we can't just leave that up to individual editors' preference" - Easily fixed. If there's any doubt as to whether or not the move would be controversial, raise it on the article's talk page and seek consensus to move. Even if you think the move is uncontroversial it doesn't hurt to explain your action on the article's talk page. There's no need to move an article immediately.
 * "I'm also concerned that the "List of..." convention restricts editing" - I haven't see any evidence that supports that. People simply don't bother. I split List of NCIS episodes to individual "List of" articles in March 2009. They were moved to NCIS (season x) articles in November 2009. Since then the only expansion outside the lede and episode list has been the addition of a cast table (more list content) so naming articles "Foo (season x)" doesn't seem to encourage expansion.
 * I also oppose because the suggested text is excessively wordy and unnecessary. All that would be required is to make minimal changes to the existing text in this article; replacing three of the words with seven different words:


 * I'm not advocating that the text be changed, just demonstrating that the above proposal is unnecessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * People just don't bother with season articles because you make it too hard to even attempt to make such an article. Someone had un-redirected NCIS: Los Angeles (season 1) a few weeks back now so i filled it in a bit. It is all set for transclusion, the ratings that were missing for US & Canada are there now, and other little things. I am still waiting for you to re-redirect it again for being too soon or not needed or who-knows-what or to finally give me your permission to fill in the rest of the article. Then we can move on to one of the other 19 seasons in the franchise that i want to improve but am so not impressed at having to get your blessing for any edit done to the articles. :(   delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 19:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to ignore this as irrelevant but it actually demonstrates a point of mine so, lets start with a little history as a refresher..... As you well know, when you split List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes with the first season only having just finished airing it was opposed, almost simultaneously by two editors, because it was premature, incompletely split and the new article provided no additional content over what was in the main list article. The opposition was entirely valid and the season article was then redirected. When it was un-redirected in November there was no indication at List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes that this had occurred until an IP had the presence of mind to transclude the article a month later, during which both the complete List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes and the un-transcluded NCIS: Los Angeles (season 1) existed in parallel, with only the main list being updated. After the article was transcluded I completed the article, and the process of splitting as per Splitting. While the split that you commenced in May wasn't carried out properly, the fact that the main list of episodes was titled "List of" it doesn't seem to have stopped you from "expanding" the article (even if it took six months to do it), which demonstrates that Mhiji's, and others, concerns about naming of articles are generally unfounded. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose As has been stated by others, a list is a list and should generally be named as such. Saying that they can't be named a list conflicts with Manual of Style (lists) and Naming conventions (long lists). Also, most season lists have little to no potential to become "articles". Also, the proposal is proscriptive instead of descriptive. Guidelines should only describe what is common practices. And lastly, no one cared about how season lists were named until Mhiji tried to "fix" them because of an infobox issue relating to italics. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 *  SUPPORT  as finally something that I can support, even if Aussie doesn't support his own example. It is perfect. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 19:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I also support Aussie's wording over Born2cycle's wording. Mhiji (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion 2

 * Incident: 7 of them got moved because User:Mhiji put move requests for them in Requested moves at this edit and I routinely obeyed them without knowing of this dispute. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So Mhiji is still trying to create a Fait accompli, this time by duping other editors into doing the dirty work for him. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I couldn't do the moves myself so requested them at WP:RM - I would have done them myself if I could. I'm just following the guidelines as they are at the moment - if they are changed then I will follow them when they are changed. We should be consistent now, following the guidelines, and if the guidelines are changed, we should follow them then. I'm not trying to create a Fait accompli. Nowhere in this discussion have I turned round and said that we should use one convention because it is common practice at the moment or because it's used more. Nor can anyone use the argument that we shouldn't use "List of..." because it's not used often. Neither of those would be a valid argument - since the guidelines are as they are at the moment, current practice is biased by them anyway. Mhiji (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline, as written, is currently disputed. So editors should shouldn't go around "enforcing" the disputed section until a consensus is achieved. Attempting to enforce a disputed guideline is seen as Fait accompli. The fact is, that section doesn't have consensus and never did when it was inserted. And if it doesn't have consensus, it should either be changed or removed. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Editors should go around "enforcing" the disputed section until a consensus is achieved"?! Mhiji (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply typo, I tend to drop "n't" disturbingly frequently. I've fixed it now. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are for season articles, not for lists split from the main list, the current guidelines (the ones here, not the naming of lists guidelines) say nothing about how to name them, that's why we're having this discussion. Just the "possibly with an episode guide for that season" line says more than enough how they don't apply to pages just containing a list.  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, to those who still think we should be using both "List of..." and "X (season Y)", when does a "List of..." article become a full season article? Mhiji (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That determination should be left on editorial discretion based on the content of the page and other pages about the same series. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn I covered that here. It could be as little as a paragraph describing the season but if you don't want to or can't make the call, discuss it on the article's talk page and gain consensus. Not everything is black and white. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, there's a solution where we don't need any grey. So basically you're saying the guideline should be changed to basically be "do whatever you like at the time". That's not much of a guideline... If we're going to do that we might as well not have any guidelines at all and just base everything on "do what you like at the time, but gain consensus if it's disputed". We have guidelines for a reason - to maintain consistency. If we're going to use both, we need some sort of guideline to say when each should be used. And this still wouldn't address the issue below. Mhiji (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're going to do that we might as well not have any guidelines at all and just base everything on "do what you like at the time, but gain consensus if it's disputed". Actually, that is how Wikipedia works. Guidelines describe common practices that are agreed to by consensus. If there is no consensus for a single standard, then all accepted practices are describe. That is why there is not a single date format, a single set of measurements, or a single variety of English. These are issues that will never get a consensus for a single standard. On top of that, all guidelines should allow for exceptions when it is needed. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I realise Wikipedia works works like that sometimes. But for all of those examples you provided, those are issues which vary by country and the differences have been around for years (sometimes hundreds of years). That's completely different. There's no single format for those, because the way dates are written, the units used and the way English is spoken varies around the world, it would be inappropriate to impose a single date format/unit/variety of English on everyone. But we do have clear guidelines, e.g. WP:STRONGNAT, to state when each format should be used. If we are going to use both naming conventions (there's no reason we should, since it can easily be avoided), we too would need a clear guideline as to when to use each one. Mhiji (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this is basically about splitting articles, take a look at how the splitting guideline is, there is no "split at this point", there is the line "There are no hard and fast rules for when an article should be split" and then some suggestions made regarding KB size of an article, but the clear cut line you want doesn't exists. Same goes for for example WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "There are no absolute rules for determining how likely a given topic is to be sought by readers entering a given term; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move." again no ratio for page visits at which point one becomes the primary article. These are all guidelines, they are not impervious rules without need for common sense or exceptions. What you want does not exist in most guidelines, that is why there are discussion pages, and they have worked just fine in the past. Using the argument "don't use this because it's to difficult" is silly, using the argument that individual article discussions should not be had and that everything must be the same despite the articles content because it can is also silly, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a prime example of that discussion is usually required. We could make everything exactly the same, we could for example disambiguate every article just because they would be more alike, but we don't, because there is nothing wrong with some common sense or a discussion.  X  eworlebi (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My argument is "don't use this because it's unnecessary". Again, this is trying to solve an issue which doesn't have to exist. If we use "X (season Y)", we don't have that problem, and there are a loads of other benefits to using that convention too (all listed above/below). The only argument put forward that I can see to using the "List of..." convention is that a "List should be called a list". Why? Per Rambo's Revenge, list articles don't always need to be named "List of..." - many FL's don't begin with "List of...". Also see my comment below in response to Jinnai (and several other comments by me and others) - sometimes it is useful to call a list "List of..." (usually because it is purposefully restricting what should be in the article), sometimes it is unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The same can be said about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we could disambiguate all articles, making the main page always a disambiguation page but we don't. Just because you believe it causes an issue, I don't see an issue, unless you think having common sense or having a discussion is an issue, doesn't mean we don't do it. You in favor of trowing out WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? By your reasoning it only causes "issues". Did you just ask why lists should be called List of, or did I just image that? Just like every other question you bring up again and again, this one has also been answered half a dozen times, because that is so according to the current naming conventions such as WP:LISTNAME, WP:NCLL or MOS:LIST.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, (repeating myself again...) the reason I keep bringing up the same issues is that you (and others) don't actually answer the questions and address the issues I'm raising. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is completely different. There's a reason why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is there - disambiguating all articles, making the main page always a disambiguation page is just ridiculous! I've already mentioned that there are times when "List of..." is a suitable naming convention - that's why WP:LISTNAME, WP:NCLL and MOS:LIST exist. Without just referring me to another policy or guideline, why should a list be called a list? If you can't provide a reason and just say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "a list should be called a list because it's a list", that's not a valid argument. I (and others) have provided many reasons why in this case we should ignore that rule. Are you saying that all of the articles at WP:FL which aren't named "List of..." should be renamed?! If not, saying that lists must be named "List of..." is ridiculous. On one hand you are saying we should be flexible, saying we should do this on a case-by-case basis, not having a rule, and the next you are saying we should rigidly stick to the "List of..." rule. Mhiji (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And again, what would we do when for one TV show where some seasons have an article which is just a list and others have full season articles? The current guidelines state "A consistent naming scheme should be used for all season articles of a TV show". Mhiji (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn I covered that here. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You said nothing about this there... Mhiji (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So that part of the guideline should be scrapped too?! Mhiji (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If that section doesn't have consensus and a revised version cannot be agreed to, yes. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Pulled entirely out of context, consistent naming scheme is about series for which some seasons have a subtitle, just read the rest of that sentence and the next one for examples.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment The whole guideline is "English world centered" in the though and fails to provided a single example not coming from English world. The "List of" naming discussion is again one more push forward into that direction. Editors are blissfully asserting that TV shows Episode list evolving into full fledged article is the norm in the English wiki while omitting that it's all about English world TV shows. The whole process of trough is focused in English world shows and its finality customarily tailored for them. --KrebMarkt (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You keep mentioning this, but I'm still rather confused. How do either of the naming conventions not apply to the non-English-speaking world? Mhiji (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes this is the English wikipedia after-all. I also fail to see how the guideline would not apply to non-English TV series. Both "X (season 1)" and "List of X epsiodes (season 1)", and replace X with some none English word, would work just fine. Lists evolving in full fledged articles is off-course the ideal, but not realistic in all cases.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are fine that "It's the English wiki" can a be good excuse for the ambient hypocrisy then there is no problem. --KrebMarkt (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, okay, I just fail to see how it would not work with non English shows, both cases. You appear to be saying that non-English series somehow can not be named "X (season 1)" or "List of X epsiodes (season 1)", and therefor this guideline fails. Which I just don't see how thats the case, are non-English articles somehow named differently?  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You still haven't really explained yourself. What is the problem/issue/argument regarding non-English TV shows that you're trying to raise? Mhiji (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that most "production and development" information simply isn't available on a per season bases in reliable sources. Save the the episode list itself, the rest is just repetition from the main article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, so the lack of verifiable content restricts the page to become anything more than an episode list, that makes sense. Same applies for English shows though, some just don't have the info to create a decent full-fletched season article. Non-English sources are actually acceptable, but if the info just doesn't exists you can't use it.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This shows that the assumption that all season lists have potential to become season articles is unrealistic. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The trick is that unless you can provide a non-English world show episode list that successfully evolved in a full fledged article. The episode list evolving into full fledged article phenomenon is Exclusively limited to English world shows thus remains an exception rather than the commonly observed evolution process. It's a hypocritical argument to assert that all episode list should be renamed as all have the potential to evolve into full fledged article because it's in reality a "Luxury" limited only to English world shows. --KrebMarkt (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant if a non-English world show episode list has ever successfully evolved into a full fledged article. The thing is the potential is still there. And we should be aiming for that to be the "evolution process", even if it doesn't happen at the moment - we should be encouraging editors to do this. Per my comment below - the information still exists, even if it's not immediately available. If the information becomes available in the future, it can be added then. In general (not just specific to TV), we don't not create articles because there is little information currently available about the subject. We just leave them as stubs, hoping that eventually someone will add more information to them - even if the information is not available at the moment, we leave the article open so that editors can add to it when they either find the information in a WP:RS or it becomes available. We should use the same principle here. Per my earlier comment, we don't call stubs, "XXXXX stub" and then change them after they get longer. We don't need to state within the name that the article is not as full or comprehensive as it might be. Wikipedia is a work in progress, everyone knows that. "X (season Y)" encourages other readers to add more information about the season. "List of..." suggests that's all it should be. Mhiji (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're simply assuming the information exists in reliable sources. And that assumption is based entirely on the evolved state of the modern entertainment press in the United States and Great Briton. However, beyond those, press coverage of production and development is hit and miss and generally incorporated into the main article about the series. Thus most season lists have not potential to become articles and it is unwise to . Even stubs, if they have no potential for expansion, are merged into other related article. You've also not show that "List of..." prevents season lists with potential from being expanded into season articles. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming anything - it's irrelevant whether the information exists in reliable sources or not. The key thing is that there is a possibility (however big or small) that it might be added at a later date (although of course it's less likely to be added if all of the people reading the article think that the article should only be a list and nothing more). How can I show that "List of..." prevents season lists with potential from being expanded into season articles?! (Similarly, you haven't proved that it doesn't...) I can't show a time where an editor has not edited an article! My point is, there is no way "X (season Y)" prevents growth, "List of..." might do (again because the editor thinks that all that should be in the article is a list so they are not inclined to add any more info), so that is quite clearly a benefit to using the "X (season Y)" convention. Mhiji (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in response to a comment made by you NCIS, a popular series, is a good example of how the arguments about whether or not a particular name encourages or discourages expansion are specious at best. Individual NCIS season articles have existed for 19 months. Thirteen months ago they were renamed from "List of NCIS episodes (season x)" to "NCIS (season x)". In all that time the only content added was more list content regardless of the name. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that there have not been cases where a "List of..." article has not been expanded to become a full season article. Of course there have - that doesn't prove anything. I'm saying that potentially "List of..." can be restrictive (it's not possible to prove either way as to whether it has been or not). You providing that example and saying that proves that "List of..." is not restrictive is just the same as me providing the example of "List of MacGyver episodes (season 3)" and saying that because that one hasn't been expanded, then that shows that it is restrictive. The point (that many editors have raised above) is that potentially it can/could be restrictive, therefore it's better to use the convention which definitely isn't. Mhiji (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I, and I'm sure everyone here, would love to be able to have all their FL of episodes become FAs. However, the bottom line is that for non-English shows - and even many English shows - the paper trail doesn't exist in such a way that it would make a decent prose. Sure you could probly list the cast and crew, but that can also be done much better on another list if that's all that your talking about. And that's the extent to which you'll find for most shows, espeically non-English ones. That's why there are so few FA seasons and they are all from popular English TV shows - they are the exception, not the rule for having a paper trail that can give good development, production and creation. 陣 内 Jinnai 14:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned above (by Rambo's Revenge and others), not all lists need to be entitled "List of...". The title of the article (whether it is "List of..." or not) doesn't affect whether it would become a FL or FA, and frankly I don't see why that's relevant to what we call them. Mhiji (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, except for disambig purposes, then why do we need "List of" for any list? Why single out TV seasons? 陣 内 Jinnai 15:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think we do very often. For some articles it is more appropriate than others. For example we have List of Presidents of the United States and President of the United States. We could call the first one just "Presidents of the United States" but I think it's clearer at it's current name to show that it is just a list, and that is all that it should be (and this also prevents other editors adding information about the role of president to the "List of..." article rather than the main article - the "List of..." is purposefully restrictive). For articles such as List of characters in The Simpsons, that is all that should be in it, a list of characters. We have an article at The Simpsons too. We could call this "Characters in The Simpsons", but the "List of..." part restricts editors from adding content to the list article, because that is already covered in the main article. If it was just called "Characters in The Simpsons", presumably people might add content such as saying "All of the characters are yellow", "The majority of the characters are played by just 6 actors". We don't want that content in that article, since that's already covered in the main article - that article should just be a list, not about the characters in general (that should be in the main article). Similarly, "List of X episodes (season Y)" would be appropriate if there was an article at "X (season Y)" that was too long to include the episode list, but established above, this is not the case. For example, if Lost (season 1) got so long that it needed to be split per WP:SS (I don't think it ever would or could), then it would be appropriate to call that article "List of Lost episodes (season 1)". But since there's not an article at "X (season Y)", we shouldn't be calling it "List of..." (we don't want to purposefully restrict editing in the same way as with US Presidents or The Simpsons characters), just call it "X (season Y) instead. Mhiji (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We clearly edit in different reality. My first concern is to improve the main article including keeping it from deletion and Original Research not stretching even more the editing front line. Caught between editors who think show not in English = Delete and fanboys/fangirls who want an article for every single & albums released related to the show, i perceive this whole discussion as "Rich people" problem so much it feels light years away from what i can afford with so limited resources. --KrebMarkt (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm still having difficulty understanding what you mean... Mhiji (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Season list naming proposed #5
Since there is no consensus to exclusively name season lists XXX (season Y), the guideline must reflect current practice. Therefore I am proposing the following change.

Change:

To:

I chose the Bleach series as it was a good example of a Featured List involving a single season instead of a whole series. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should always use featured lists as examples where possible. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - LIke I said, I don't see how any "List of ... (season)" page would be able to operate as a sufficient article with just an episode list and the "Featured List" you provided is one that was promoted 3 years ago and our standards have changed a lot for featured television lists since then. I do not believe it would pass our current standards. I support my opinion that the pages should simply be "Show (season)". Otherwise it would appear that you are arging that Lost (season 3) is really an article and not a list page, and that is not the case because it wouldn't pass any article review because of the comprehensiveness that "article" status would require.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a Non English show example? --KrebMarkt (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-english show for an example of which?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The assumption that all season lists have the potential to be articles. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "article" in this case, but of course all season lists have the potential to be expanded, with information about the plot, character, production, reception etc. Even if an article sits there for years and nothing is added to it, that's not a problem. There's no deadline we have to meet. There's always potential to add to articles, so we should be persuading editors to do so. Mhiji (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Most non-English television series don't get the coverage relating to the production, reception. "Cast" is covered by the main article or character list and the episode summaries themselves cover the plot. So there is little potential for them to become "articles".
 * It's irrelevant if they get coverage or not. The information still exists, even if it's not immediately available. If the information becomes available in the future, it can be added then. In general (not just specific to TV), we don't not create articles because there is little information currently available about the subject. We just leave them as stubs, hoping that eventually someone will add more information to them - even if the information is not available at the moment, we leave the article open so that editors can add to it when they either find the information in a WP:RS or it becomes available. We should use the same principle here. Per my earlier comment, we don't call stubs, "XXXXX stub" and then change them after they get longer. We don't need to state within the name that the article is not as full or comprehensive as it might be. Wikipedia is a work in progress, everyone knows that. "X (season Y)" encourages other readers to add more information about the season. "List of..." suggests that's all it should be. Mhiji (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That assumption is just plain unrealistic. Do you really think that all of a sudden information about a show that aired 30–40 years ago will fall out of the sky? On a similar note, would you tag every article containing just an episode list as a stub? You haven't done that so far. Also the (X stub) is frankly stupid as a comparison. As well as the "List of" discourages users from expanding, and without "List of" it doesn't, which has been debunked several times now.  X  eworlebi (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've completely missed my point. Wikipedia is a work in progress and will never be finished. I agree, with a lot of articles/pages/lists/whatever, the information is not available, but that doesn't mean we should just give up and basically say, "we're probably never going to be able to expand this article more so we might as well give up trying and just call it a list". That's just ridiculous. The only thing we're doing by doing that is dissuading other editors to contribute. And when has that been "debunked several times now". When?! I'm not suggesting that it's likely for information about a show that aired 30–40 years ago will fall out of the sky. But by that logic, we should stop anyone from adding any information to the article about a show that happened 30-40 years ago (e.g. Love Thy Neighbour), and we should stop anyone adding content to Trojan War - that happened 3000 years ago! You're saying no-one should add to those? It doesn't matter if articles like that are not added to often (they still might be occasionally) or even at all (they still might be one day). And no, I'm not suggesting all "List of X (season Y)" articles are stubs, I didn't say that. I'm saying that all "List of X (season Y)" can potentially be expanded. Even if they are really unlikely to be built upon, there's no point just giving up on them. Mhiji (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not missing your point as I have stated I find it completely unrealistic. Wikipedia is a work in progress and moving an article is perfectly possible when that is appropriate. On the Trojan War, new info can be "discovered", that doesn't happen for TV shows. We're also not "giving up" if someone wants to add something new they can still do that, it won't be removed because of the article name. You keep comparing these list only articles with stubs (but you didn't say that…). The stub naming article argument is a stupid one, as that has never happened or even considered while naming articles "List of" happens all the time, and is on par with other guidelines. For the "And when has that hasn't been "debunked several times now". When?!" If you're not even reading this discussion don't bother re-asking the same questions over and over again, like the "were is the line" question.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read every word of this discussion. Sorry that I have to repeat myself, but if anyone actually answered the questions I'm asking and issues I've raised (and that others have asked and raised) then I wouldn't have to. No-one has given a sensible answer to either of those issues. It hasn't been "debunked", it's a perfectly valid argument. Again, when has anyone "debunked" it? If you can't answer that question and find any place in the above discussion where it has been "debunked", then it quite clearly hasn't. You can't just say, "Your argument's wrong" without providing a rationale. So unless you (or anyone else) can answer that question, that still stands as a valid argument not to use the "List of..." convention (and quite a strong one in my opinion). And no-one has given a sensible answer to the "where is the line" question either. The only reply to that question was from Aussie Legend who suggested we should treat each article on a case-by-case basis. Frankly, that's ridiculous. If we are doing that, we might as well just scrap all guidelines and do everything on a case-by-case basis. There's a reason we don't do that - it's an incredibly inefficient way of doing things. So, that would basically involve that for every TV series we have to have a week long move discussion about what to name it, and even then, depending on the editors involved, it's likely that which name is used will be inconsistent with other articles (of the same length or comprehensiveness). That would be inefficient and a complete waste of time, considering that there is a solution which would not involve doing this. Mhiji (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How does one provide an example of an assumption of potential?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are going to make such an assumption, then you need to provide evidence that the assumption is correct. If you can't do that, then the assumption is most likely false. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did I make any assumption? Unless you're referring to my comment that your FL example wouldn't pass FL criteria today. Then my example will be the put it up for review and see how it stands. Is that what you are requesting that I do?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My proposal doesn't prevent a season list, like Lost (season 3) from being named "Show (season)" depending on consensus. What this does is that it can be named List of Lost episodes (season 3) if that is the consensus for that page and the rest of that article series. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense to do it that way. We don't allow any other series of articles to "pick" what they want their name to be. It's based on what is the common name for that topic and what is the more likely of searching. People are more likely to simply search for "In Bed with Medinner", and thus be presented with all of the "In Bed with Medinner (season X)" possibilities than they would "List of In Bed with MeDinner" and see all of those variations of the name. Since you're saying that there's no difference between "Lost (season 2)" and "List of Lost episodes (season 2)" (though I would argue that the latter implies that's all you're getting) then why even both with the extended version of the name if they both convey the same message in your eyes?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "In Bed with Medinner (season X)" is hardly a "common name", at least it is no more common than "List of In Bed with Medinner episodes (season X)". But "List of Bleach episodes (season X)" has not proven to be a problem for searches, and if one is really that worried about search terms, create a redirect. The point here is to allow season lists to be name correctly based on there content and on consensus. It is not to shove a square peg into a round whole. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote? "In Bed with Medinner" is the common name, and that is the more searchable term. Thus, when you type it into the search engine you'll get all of the "IBwM (season)" options. You won't see "List of IBwM (season)" because "List of...." is not the more commonly searched term. Again, what season lists are simply episode tables? Your examples are from lists that were created years ago, and the move in the past year has been to include more than just a table of episode titles. Thus, the idea of "List of" only applies to parent articles today, and no longer to season pages. You can go through any recent GA or FL or Peer Review of season pages and see where the move is for article content and it's not to simply stop with an episode table and call it a day. Thus, to say "call it '"List of...'" is inaccurate because other than older pages that have not been updated in years, you are not finding that setup any longer.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone is searching for "In Bed with Medinner", then they are likely looking for the main article instead of any of the season pages. I also don't find your argument than "List of IBwM (season)" is harder to find than "IBwM (season)" all that persuasive. Again, because most people are looking for the main article, they will navigate their way from the main article to the season pages. And if you want a more recent example of a featured season list, there is List of Bleach episodes (season 10). List of Buso Renkin episodes was promoted just a few days ago and isn't all that much different from the Bleach lists. The only reason it doesn't have (season X) after it is because the series only lasted for one season (26 episodes), so such disambiguation wasn't necessary. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No-one here is disputing here that articles where there is not a number of different seasons should be called "List of X episodes". So, of course List of Buso Renkin episodes should be named in that way. Mhiji (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "I support my opinion" - I hope so. ;) --AussieLegend (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to my specific "Support" in the above survey.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lost (season 3) wouldn't pass FAR because it lacks a production section. Just because an article contains a list does not exclude it from becoming a featured article. Just to name South Park (season 13) which would have passed FA if not for the image silliness or the several other articles containing an episode list, including your own nomination Smallville (season 1), which is definitely an article.  X  eworlebi (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if your comment is directed at my comments or someone elses. I never compared any of those in that way. My comment was that "List of Beach episodes (season 2)" wouldn't pass FLC, because it is just an episode table. I wasn't talking about FAC. My point is that to use that as an example of a page that is a featured list and just has an episode table is inaccurate because it was promoted 3 years ago and our standards have changed and that page hasn't been reviewed in 3 years. South Partk season 13 IS an article and I fully believe it should have been promoted to FA status (that crap about the DVD image is completely stupid and just shows how there isn't consistency with regard to non-free image placement in articles). In addition, Lost season 3 is more of a list because even the prose information is really just list information in the form of a sentence. It could all easily be converted to tables of cast and crew members. That is why what page is a Featured List, and not a featured article as you pointed out. None of that information is hard to come by, even for a show 40 years old because it isn't production info. That is why I believe that it's not appropriate to call pages "List of (season" because it implies that it's just an episode table and the page shouldn't be just an episode table when it's very easy to provide cast and crew information in those cases, thus making it more than just a "list of episodes".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll assume that reply was aimed at me and not yourself. Your indentation is entirely unclear, you appear to be always responding to yourself, see WP:INDENT for making conversations clear, and get rid of the who-replied-to-who confusion. My reply was to you saying "Otherwise it would appear that you are arging that Lost (season 3) is really an article and not a list page, and that is not the case because it wouldn't pass any article review because of the comprehensiveness that "article" status would require." My reply was that that page is an article but wouldn't get FA because it fails the FAC-MOS guidelines on a production section. It does however contain more than enough information (mostly pointing to the reception section) outside of the episode list to call it "Lost (season 3)". Other pages only contain an episode list and in that case "it's just an episode table". While in the perfect world it shouldn't be, it is. I don't believe the FA/FL reason is a valid one, articles can contain more info than just the list and thus be named "show (season #)" but still lack enough content to strife for FA status, as shown by the many season television FL's. And if your page isn't good enough for FA, why not go for the achievable FL.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're not hung up on the dating of the FLC of Bleach episode list from 3 years ago, I'll propose an alternate of a similar nature - List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 1) from less than 1 year ago. It's exactly the same setup as the Bleach one and you cannot tell me the FLC criteria have changed that much in that short of time period as I've gone through the process even more recently. Furthermore, if I cared to, I am confident I could get another FLC of a similar nature to either the Ah! My Goddess or Bleach season 3 as another FL. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Television film?
The guidelines stipulate that the disambiguation term for TV films is "television film". In all other terms "television" is abbreviated to "TV", such as "TV series" or "TV program" or "TV serial" blah blah blah. Is there any special reason why we can't use the abbreviated form for television films too? Betty Logan (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguating television films
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film regarding the disambiguation of television films; your naming conventions advocate making a distinction between TV films and feature films, but the reasons and the criteria for when to do this are not clear. Any views you have on this would be welcome at the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice
Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change to television disambiguation
The current disambiguation policy is:

Use the following when there are two or more television productions of the same name.
 * Prefix the country of broadcast – <tt>(U.S. TV series)</tt>
 * (Write U.S. with periods, but write UK without periods as per WP:NCA.)


 * Prefix the year of release or series debut – <tt>(1997 TV series)</tt>
 * Prefix the network identification – <tt>(BBC TV series)</tt>
 * Prefix with "animated" – <tt>(animated TV series)</tt>

However, recently, The Firm (Canadian TV series) / The Firm (2012 TV series) has shown that there are problems with this disambiguation policy. Prefixing the "country of broadcast" is meaningless, because in today's internationalized world, most television series are broadcasted in multiple countries; the only way to distinguish by country is by country of production/origin. Also, it would be better if the policy spells out that in the case of multiple countries being involved in production, disambiguation not be dependent on country. Therefore, I propose that the naming convention be changed to:

Use the following, in order, when there are two or more television productions of the same name:
 * Prefix the country of origin (country of production) if there is a single clear country of origin (that is, if it is not a multinational production) – <tt>(U.S. TV series)</tt>
 * (Write U.S. with periods, but write UK without periods as per WP:NCA.)


 * Prefix the year of release or series debut – <tt>(1997 TV series)</tt>
 * Prefix the network identification – <tt>(BBC TV series)</tt>
 * Prefix with "animated" – <tt>(animated TV series)</tt>

This would mean that The Firm would be located at The Firm (2012 TV series) instead of at The Firm (Canadian TV series). What do people think? Would you support this change?

—Lowellian (reply) 22:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with specifying that the country of origin should only be used when it is not contentious, but does this mean that The Firm (Canadian TV series) will move to The Firm (2012 TV series) while The Firm (Malaysian TV series) remains where it is? Jay32183 (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. —Lowellian (reply) 22:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not so convinced because then it invites conflict on multinational remakes like Being Human and Queer As Folk. With QAF it was not as overt (made in Canada but set in US so it could be broadcast by Showtime) but with BH the show's own credits declare it to be the North American version. This proposed change in the policy would create instability there by requiring it to NOT be disambiguated as such. With the original of BH active at the time of the premiere of the remake and the British custom of calling them series sometimes by year of broadcast use of 2012 TV Series for BH is an ambiguous disambiguation but would be in compliance with the proposed policy change. As to the matter of declaring country of origin to be country of production that is its own fight right there because they are OFTEN not the same. Smallville was made in Canada. So was The L Word, Killer Instinct, Alcatraz, Wonderfalls, The Secret Circle, Bag Of Bones, Suits, Alphas, Covert Affairs, Warehouse 13, Nikita, and Copper among many scores of others. Not one of these shows is set in Canada or considered Canadian by most people but they all are/were 'country of production = Canada'. The Firm originated in the USA but is produced in Canada and was initially commissioned for non-NorthAmerica. Then there is the matter of people insisting things are 100% American. One such show is the remake of Skins. I got told it is an American show with the implications that Corus Entertainment and Astral Media are American companies, that Movie Central and The Movie Network are American channels, and that Toronto is an American city. I thought it totally absurd. There are plenty of people out there who will insist that shows are not multinational and will make outrageous claims and generally American media don't honestly declare the origin of things when they originate outside of the USA which results in scores of sources claiming a show is NOT an import or a multinational production when it really is. Most shows that get/got made in Canada with the intent on international sale were set in some American city because a show set in Canada would had to have been given away to international markets if it made it out of Canada at all. And if it was to be sold to a US broadcaster it HAD to be set in an American city. That is why the first season of Flashpoint was a bit ambiguous about its setting and why Being Human is made in Montreal but set in Boston and why QAF was set in Pittsburgh and rookie blue only named some streets and neighbourhoods at first to allow its viewers to get hooked before realising it is set in Toronto. The show Falcon Beach was made in Winnipeg and set there but for the broadcast on ABC Family alternate takes were edited in which had the dialogue indicate it was set somewhere in New England which means American viewers would be inclined to say it is an American production and therefore an American show. If you want to reach back in time a little there is Sue Thomas, F.B.Eye, Mysterious Ways, Twice In A Lifetime, and Little Men which were all made in Canada for CTV but which are set in the USA and were seen on PAX or/and NBC. The show Endgame was hugely popular in filesharing. It was made and set in Vancouver. The better part of a year later it comes available on Hulu having never secured a conventional broadcaster in the USA. There is no way to satisfy all of the possibilities within a policy of reasonable size. Do you want to write in a clause for when the multinational origin of a show is disputed or when a show has its own disambiguation which doesn't conform with this policy or whatever other situation you could think of which either conflicts with or isn't within the limitations of the current or proposed policies? Are you aware that last year on BBC there were two shows of the exact same name which had not a thing to do with each other. One was on BBC One and the other on BBC Four; one is a scripted drama and the other something more of an educational programme. Both of them would be "UK TV series" or "2011 TV series" or "BBC TV series". Thankfully only one of them has an article here on Wikipedia. So, while i appreciate the effort i think you are taking it in a more restrictive direction when the need is for flexibility. If not for you dismissing the actual words of the policy for your own interpretation of its intent there would be no issue here because The Firm was by current policy properly disambiguated as 2012 due to its multinational production and simultaneous multinational premiere.  You found a place in which you created a problem where no problem existed, ostensibly out of your own ignorance. Now you want to push through a change in this here policy so that it will read like you have previously incorrectly interpreted it. In case it isn't clear i do not support this proposal.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 21:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If there is a different specific policy wording that you would prefer, please suggest it. The point of the new policy is to fix the exact problems that you originally brought up regarding not using country as disambiguation when the country is not clear.
 * Re: "There is no way to satisfy all of the possibilities within a policy of reasonable size. Do you want to write in a clause for when the multinational origin of a show is disputed or when a show has its own disambiguation which doesn't conform with this policy or whatever other situation you could think of which either conflicts with or isn't within the limitations of the current or proposed policies?" <-- The new policy solves these problems; it does satisfy all the possibilities in a reasonable size. A clause in the new policy ("if there is a single clear country of origin") makes it clear that if the country is in dispute, country disambiguation is avoided. The whole point of the policy revision is that it clarifies the situations the older policy left ambiguous. The older policy is clearly flawed when its first criterion is "country of broadcast", which is meaningless when most TV shows are broadcast in multiple countries.
 * Re: "Are you aware that last year on BBC there were two shows of the exact same name which had not a thing to do with each other. One was on BBC One and the other on BBC Four; one is a scripted drama and the other something more of an educational programme. Both of them would be "UK TV series" or "2011 TV series" or "BBC TV series". Thankfully only one of them has an article here on Wikipedia." <-- This would not cause a problem. Under both the former and the proposed new policy, the two series, being unable to be distinguished by country or year, would then be distinguished by network, as "BBC One TV series" and "BBC Four TV series", respectively, so there is no problem with their names.
 * —Lowellian (reply) 23:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I personally think that The Firm (Canadian TV series) should be moved to The Firm (2012 TV series), as it was over the Summer. I say this because it airs in two countries at once.  68.44.179.54 (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's based on country of production, not country of broadcast. Several anime series have a simulcast in the United States, but they are clearly Japanese TV series. Jay32183 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That is one of the core problems with the current disambiguation policy that needs to be fixed: the disambiguation policy says to use "country of broadcast" to disambiguate, but that is meaningless when most modern television shows are broadcast in multiple countries. Under the revised policy, The Firm would indeed be disambiguated by year. —Lowellian (reply) 22:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Unsure if necessary. When I read the current guidelines, It does not read to me that you have to apply the additional disambiguation names in any order. (I am pretty sure that I have seen other Wikipedia "guidelines", but don't recall where exactly, that do enumerate "First use x, second use y, etc." when a defined hierarchy needs to be followed.) The most "universal" disambiguation name should be used whenever possible, and can be decided upon through talk page discussion when it does not appear obvious. --UnQuébécois (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The first criterion alone ("country of broadcast") makes the old policy broken, since that criterion is meaningless when most TV shows are broadcasted across multiple countries. Re: "can be decided upon through talk page discussion when it does not appear obvious." The problem with this is that the same disputes are going to come up again and again on the talk pages for multiple TV shows. Naming conventions prevent these disputes. —Lowellian (reply) 23:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The only time this comes up is if there exists more than one TV show with the same name. As for country of broadcast, there is no "criteria" that forces us to use that as the first choice. "The Firm" is a great example of how we evaluate and find the best fit. In this case there seems to be no clear cut original country of broadcast (or primary country of broadcast). The proposed change to country of production would confound the situation in my opinion, American TV shows are often produced in Canada and even elsewhere. I would not have ever considered The Firm as a Canadian TV Series, as it's about The FBI (US Agency), Chicago mob (set in a US city), etc. even as being "produced" here in Canada, it seems to be "owned" (or comissioned) by Sony Television, an American(ish) company. IF the TV show NCIS needed to be disambiguated under the current guidelines, would we have to name it NCIS (Canadian TV Series) because it airs on Mondays in Canada, instead of Tuesdays in The US? I hope not, we would find consensus as to what makes more sense. For good or for bad, for "political","legal" and "financial" reasons many "American" TV shows are produced here in Canada, they also air on Canadian TV networks, does that make them Canadian TV? According to the Canadian Content Rules of the CRTC, possibly yes, but for common sense I'd have to say no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnQuébécois (talk • contribs) 03:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I had a thought and I'm only bringing it up to make sure all options are considered. If the country of origin is unclear because it's a combined United States and Canadian production, would calling it "North American TV series" be acceptable? If people don't like this idea, it's fine; Just thought I should throw the idea out there. Jay32183 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your suggestion, do not want to dismiss it, but think it would confound things even more. North america is not always just US - Canada, it also includes Mexico in many definitions. I feel that Mexican TV series are distinct from American or Canadian TV series. There is much homogenization in "English Language" television/movies, but in my opinion there are distinct types, major types are American and British, with others like Canadian, Australian, etc... each having distinct features like language, comedy style, localisms etc... --UnQuébécois (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Will there be a Pan-Wikipedia Television Naming Convention cleanup, or at the very least, full, self-consistency
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28television%29#Episodic_television — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.204.129 (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Big Bang Theory does follow the existing naming convention. Disambiguation is unnecessary. "The" is only included in article titles when part of a proper name. Also, the word theory wouldn't be capitalized unless part of a proper name. The requested move closed less than a month ago. It's also really hard to listen to an anonymous IP claiming something violates policy when their posts aren't signed and they use external links to link to Wikipedia pages. Wikilinks and signing pages are usually among the first things new users learn. Jay32183 (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(TV film) or (television film)
Either one may be fine, but I used "TV film" in Undercover Angel (TV film) to distinct that. May I include "TV film" in the guideline, please? --George Ho (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

naming of season articles
Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but what is the rationale for naming articles things like 24 (season 1) and Doctor Who (series 1). The bit in brackets hardly seems to meet the usual usage of disambiguation. There's not a thing called "Doctor Who" which has to be distinguished from the other Doctor Who's by specifying we mean the one which is series 1. It's almost like having, I dunno, Film (2012) rather than 2012 in film. I'd expect to find them at Doctor Who series 1 and 24 season 1 instead, I think. Morwen - Talk 15:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone?  I'm not about to go on a move spree or something, but I'd like to hear any arguments anyone has in favour of the current convention.  Morwen - Talk 16:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well? I'm going to give it another week or something and then, if nobody objects or comments, just belatedly be WP:BOLD and update the text to specify 24 season 1 and Doctor Who series 1.  Ones of the form Being Human (U.S. season 1) would then I suppose become Being Human season 1 (U.S.), instead.  Morwen - Talk 14:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd be opposed to this, as generally the titles imply what I've always seen to be the case—regardless of season, the show is always the same, so we disambiguate the show at a given moment by season. When you watch an episode of Millennium, it's always Millennium, not "Millennium season 2". We then separate seasons by disambiguating a slice of the series as a whole rather than declaring each season a separate entity, which is the implication of the suggested change. I hope that makes sense. I guess it would be the same as changing The Thing (1982 film) to "The Thing, 1982", which isn't its title. However, I would support enforcing MOS:NUM in season titles, as I don't see why we use "season 1", "season 2" etc, and not "season one", "season two". GRAPPLE   X  15:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Another way to look at it is to compare it to lists like Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (G). This isn't so much disambiguating the "Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster" from other similar titles, but dividing the roster into manageable chunks based on a natural break (alphabet here, seasons in TV). GRAPPLE   X  15:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But, it's not a disambiguation, by the guidelines at WP:DAB. Let me address your example.  The Thing (1982 film) is not the same thing (if you will forgive the pun) as The Thing (2011 film).  There two films, in a film series, that happen to be called The Thing.  Both of their simple names are The Thing, but only one thing can be at The Thing, so at least one of them has to be somewhere else.  If one of them was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then the other would be dablinked from a hatnote.  Disambiguation is only for things that are separate entities already, but share the same name.   However, in the case of 24 (season 1), 24 (season 2), etc we're not talking about a series of things all of which are called 24, but they are about portions of a single entity.  When being distinguished in sources, they get called "24 season 1", or "season 1", never "24" or "24 (season 1)".  Significantly, they're not linked from 24 (disambiguation), and doing so would be wrong and confusing.    Furthermore, even if we allow that disambiguation is involved, then DAB suggests "natural disambiguation" be tried first - which would lead to 24 season 1.  If you look at the things it suggests for being inside brackets, "season 1" does not fit the models that it recommends.
 * I would regard your example list there to also be probably misnamed, although in that case it is less obvious what a better name would be.  Morwen - Talk 16:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and another important thing is what the lede of the article bolds. Doctor Who (season 1) bolds "1st season", as well as "Doctor Who", "24 season 1" bolds "Day One" only.  Your example, Millennium (season 1) bolds "first season", and not "Millennium".  Lots of other other ones, e.g.  Game of Thrones (season 1) and Lost (season 1) don't bold anything.  Generally, if disambiguation were involved, I'd expect to see only the part before the brackets bolded: none of these articles do that.   Morwen - Talk 16:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the OP. I find the naming fairly inconsistant with the rest of the Wikipedia articles. E.g. it is called United States presidential election, 2012, not "United States presidential election (2012)". 2012–13 Premier League, not "Premier League (2012–13)". 85th Academy Awards, not "Academy Awards (85)". --Maitch (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd restate the counter-argument like this: Some shows do change their title by season, eg. Spartacus: Blood and Sand (the show's first season) to Spartacus: Vengeance (its second). In this case, the article refers to a separate work (the season), with its own given name. However, most shows have the same name across multiple seasons: in these cases, the topic of the article is still a different work, but with a disambiguation-appended title (hence the brackets).


 * In cases of by-season episode lists, I think the season should be outside of brackets, as the phrase is being used to describe the episodes being listed, ie. "List of season 5 South Park episodes" is another way of saying "List of South Park episodes of season 5". STUART (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Tightening the disambiguation guideline for consistency
There seems to be too much editor choice in the disambiguation guideline which leads to non-uniformity. The WP:NCF has a hierarchy in place, where you disambiguate with film, then the year, then the country, then an additional disambiguator. Maybe we should employ a similar system here to encourage consistency. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and additionally, the use of "series" alone (Dragnet (series) as an example) should be brought in line with WP:NCF and amended to "franchise". --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I came to this page to make a similar comment. I agree with Rob that the names of certain television articles could do with some tightening, as I don't think they are as precise and unambiguous as they could be. For example, an uninformed reader isn't going to whether Dave (Lost) refers to a character named Dave from Lost, or a episode of Lost called "Dave". And what about Jacob (Lost) – is that a character or an episode? Even if you're not an uninformed reader, some of the article titles are confusing – does Naomi (Skins) link to the character or the episode? What about Pandora (Skins)? Adding "episode" or "character" to the parentheses would remove this ambiguity. A Thousand Doors (talk &#124; contribs) 14:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)