|
[[Image:Saddam Hussein at trial, July 2004.JPEG|thumb|200px|right|[[Saddam Hussein]], during his trial in July 2004]]
{{Archive box|* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive1|Archive1]] - June 2003 – August 2004<br />
Former [[President of Iraq]] '''[[Saddam Hussein]]''' ([[April 28]], [[1937]]–[[December 30]], [[2006]]) was [[Capital punishment in Iraq|'''executed''']] by [[hanging]] after being convicted of [[Crime against humanity|crimes against humanity]] by the [[Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal|Iraqi Special Tribunal]] following [[trial of Saddam Hussein|his trial]] for the murder of 148 Iraqi [[Shi'a Islam|Shi'ites]] in the town of [[Dujail]] in 1982 in retaliation for an assassination attempt against him.<ref name="ap burial">{{cite news | url = http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Saddam.html | title = Saddam buried in village of his birth | work = [[Associated Press]] |date= 2006-12-31 | accessdate = 2006-12-31 }}</ref>
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive2|Archive2]] - August 2004 – September 2005<br />
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive3|Archive3]] - September 2005 – May 2006
}}
----
==How do I name this?==
If I'm going to write an article on a Korean variety show, how would I name it (it's called "X-Man", so I need a descriptor after it)? It's not exactly a serial, but would [[X-Man (variety show)]] work? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:SKS2K6|SKS2K6]] ([[User talk:SKS2K6|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SKS2K6|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
Saddam was president of [[Iraq]] from [[July 16]], [[1979]] until [[April 9]], [[2003]], when he was deposed during the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] by [[Multinational force in Iraq|U.S.-led forces]]. After his [[Saddam_Hussein#Capture and incarceration|capture]] in [[ad-Dawr]] near his hometown of [[Tikrit]], Saddam was held in United States custody at [[Camp Cropper]] to face trial by the Iraqi Special Tribunal for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. On [[November 5]], [[2006]], he was sentenced to death by hanging.
:[[X-Man (variety show)]] seems good. There would likely be confusing with X-Man (TV show), so I would go with (variety show) instead. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
On [[December 30]], [[2006]], Saddam was taken to [[Camp Justice]] to be executed. The Iraqi government released an official video of the execution, including Saddam being lead to the gallows and stopping after the noose was placed around his neck. Much controversy has arisen, however, due to the surfacing of a mobile phone recording of the hanging which included audio, and showed Saddam falling through the trap door in the gallows. The audio, which was not in the official video, revealed taunts between Saddam and the executioners, which raised much criticism over the environment of his execution.
==Related discussion==
On [[December 31]], [[2006]], Saddam's body was flown to his birth place of [[Al-Awja]] to be buried near his family.
There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix]], about the best way to consistently title ''Lost'' episodes (such as to use a suffix of "(Lost)" or "(Lost episode)"). Interested editors are invited to participate, to ensure consensus. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 23:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
==Trial==
== Episode naming, again! ==
{{main|Trial of Saddam Hussein}}
Held in custody by U.S. forces at [[Camp Cropper]] in Baghdad, on [[June 30]], [[2004]], Saddam Hussein and eleven senior [[Baath Party|Ba'athist]] officials were handed over to the [[Iraqi Interim Government]] to stand trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. A few weeks later, he was charged by the [[Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal|Iraqi Special Tribunal]] with the mass killings of the inhabitants of the village of [[Dujail]] in [[1982]] following a failed assassination attempt against him.
On [[November 5]], [[2006]], Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death by hanging. Verdict and sentencing were both appealed but subsequently affirmed by Iraq's Supreme Court of Appeals.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061227/D8M8RSR80.html| title=Iraq court upholds Saddam death sentence | publisher= [[Associated Press]] | date=December 26, 2006 | accessdate=2006-12-30 | author=Christopher Torcia }}</ref>
I'm a bit confused over episode naming. I have seen both ''Episode-name (Show-name)'' and ''Episode-name (Show-name episode)'' used. General naming convention is to describe WHAT the item is, not where it is from - for example, ''(actor)'' and ''(politician)'' would be preferred for diambiguating two names, and if there were more than one politician, then ''(Australian politician)'' and ''(Canadian politician)'' would be preferred. using ''(Australia)'' and ''(Canada)'' would be wrong using this method.
Although the United States approved of the trial, an attempt was made to postpone, stay, or overturn the execution order. Attempts were made to contact the Iraqi government to validate the legality of the execution under the new [[Constitution of Iraq|Iraqi constitution]]. The parliament, claiming that the security issues presented a need to act swiftly, dismissed the request. Further attempts were made to get a stay of execution from the anti-death penalty President [[Jalal Talibani]] or a clearance that he had no objections. The Iraqi government determined that no clearance from Talibani was necessary.<ref>{{cite news
I would have expected television episodes naming conventions to be a subset of the general naming conventions - and as such use ''(Lost episode)'' and ''(Jericho episode)'' for example. I have seen a few articles using just ''(Lost)'' which is wrong - the word "Lost" by itself doesn't do anything to tell you what the article is about, unless you already know that it is an episode of the show. Looking deeper I have found that [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes#Naming|this is the recommended naming convention]] for WikiProject Television episodes!
|title = Top Iraqi source: U.S. tried to delay execution
|url = http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/02/saddam.execution/index.html
|publisher = [[CNN]]
|date = 2007-01-02
|accessdate = 2007-01-02}}</ref>
On the afternoon of [[December 29]], [[2006]], at a federal court in [[Washington, D.C.]], United States, lawyers for Saddam Hussein sought unsuccessfully to block his transfer from U.S. custody to the custody of Iraqi officials.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=0853624d-1ccd-4ee7-bf52-ec45cac23afd| title = Lawyers for Saddam seek court order in United States to block execution| accessdate = 2006-12-30|date= 2006-12-29| publisher = [[Associated Press]]}} </ref><ref>[http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/inresaddam122906app.html Application for Stay of Execution]</ref> Meanwhile, officials from the U.S. also tried to delay the execution due to concerns the execution would be seen as Shi'ite retribution.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/02/saddam.execution/index.html | title= Iraq probes Hussein execution | publisher= [[CNN]] | date=2007-01-02 | accessdate=2007-01-03}}</ref>
Trying to find past discussion about this is tricky, I've found info scattered over [[WP:NC|WP:Naming conventions]], [[WP:TV-NC|WP:Naming conventions (television)]], [[WP:DAB|WP:Disambiguation]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Television]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes]], and the associated talk pages. I'm not sure where I should bring it up, but the episode naming convention should be "(''Show name'' episode)" - it is after all a part of Wikipedia and where possible different projects should not have different naming schemes.
==Execution==
Note: Whether or not episode article names should be pre-emptively disambiguated is another topic altogether! -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 02:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
===Prior to execution===
Two days prior to the execution, a letter written by Saddam appeared on the [[Baath Party]] Web site. In the letter, he urged the Iraqi people to embrace unity, to hate not the people of countries that invaded Iraq, but instead the decision-makers. He said he was ready to die a [[martyr#In Islam|martyr]] and he said that he was at peace with his death sentence.<ref>{{cite news |title=Saddam Bids Iraqis Farewell in Letter, Urges Unity |url=http://www.redbolivia.com/noticias/News%20in%20English/36246.html |publisher=RedBolivia |date=December 28, 2006}}</ref> In the hours before the execution, Saddam ate his [[last meal]], chicken and rice with a cup of hot water and honey. He then said [[prayer]]s and verses from the [[Qur'an]].<ref name="alarabiya-lasthour">{{cite news |url=http://www.alarabiya.net/Articles/2006/12/31/30360.htm |title=شريط يظهر نطقه للشهادتين ومصوّر الإعدام يروي لحظة النهاية تفاصيل الساعة الأخيرة في حياة الرئيس السابق صدام حسي (Tape shows last details of Saddam's life) |publisher=Al-Arabiya |date=December 31, 2006 |language=Arabic}}</ref>
===Time and place of execution===
:Sounds like a reasonable rational to me, I agree. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 03:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Saddam was executed by [[hanging]] at approximately 06:00 local time (03:00 [[Greenwich Mean Time|GMT]]) on [[December 30]], [[2006]], the day [[Sunni Islam|Sunni]] Iraqis begin celebrating [[Eid ul-Adha]].<ref name="msnbc coverage">{{cite news | url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16389128/ | title = Saddam Hussein executed, ending era in Iraq | work = [[MSNBC]] |date= 2006-12-29 | accessdate = 2006-12-29 }}</ref><ref name="bbc">{{cite news | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6218485.stm | title = Saddam Hussein executed in Iraq | work = [[BBC News]]|date= 2006-12-29 | accessdate = 2006-12-29 }}</ref><ref name="skynews">{{cite news | url = http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13559626,00.html | title = Saddam Body Flown Home | work = [[Sky News]] |date= 2006-12-29 | accessdate = 2006-12-29 }}</ref> Eid ul-Adha is one of Islam's most important holidays, which celebrates [[Ibrahim|Ibrahim's]] willingness to sacrifice his son [[Ishmael]] to God.<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.mlive.com/living/sanews/index.ssf?/base/features-0/1166872965243380.xml&coll=9 | title = Eid al-Adha most important feast on Muslim calendar | work = [[Saginaw News]] |date= 2006-12-23 | accessdate = 2007-01-05 }}</ref> The exact time of the execution is conflicting, with some sources reporting the time as 06:00, as 6:05, or some as late as 06:10.<ref name="skynews"/><ref name="msnbc coverage"/><ref name="executed 610">{{cite news | url = http://www.tiscali.co.uk/news/newswire.php/news/reuters/2006/12/31/world/saddam-hanged-but-no-let-up-in-iraq-violence.html | title = Saddam hanged but no let-up in Iraq violence | work = [[Reuters]] |date= 2006-12-31 | accessdate = 2007-01-05 }}</ref> The execution took place at the Iraqi army base [[Camp Justice]], located in [[Kazimain]], a north-eastern suburb of [[Baghdad]]. Camp Justice was previously used by Saddam as his military intelligence headquarters, then known as Camp Banzai, where Iraqi civilians were taken to be tortured and executed on the same gallows.<ref name="dawn">{{cite news | url = http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-12-30T054650Z_01_IBO034602_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-C2-NextArticle-2 | title = Saddam hanged at dawn | work = [[Reuters]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref> Contrary to initial reports, Saddam was executed alone, not at the same time as his co-defendants [[Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti]] and [[Awad Hamed al-Bandar]], who were executed on [[January 15]], [[2007]].<ref name="dawn"/>
===Execution proceedings===
== Requesting comments for Lost episodes ==
{{wikinews|Saddam Hussein executed by hanging}}
The last legal step, before the execution proceeded, was for Saddam to be handed a red card. This was completed by an official of the court with details of the judgment and a notice that execution was imminent.<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/29/news/saddam.php | title = Iraq is preparing for Saddam's hanging | work = [[International Herald Tribune]] |date= 2006-12-29 | accessdate = 2006-12-31 }}</ref> According to a senior Iraqi official, Saddam seemed "very calm and did not tremble" before his execution,<ref name="dawn"/> although some reports claim he struggled slightly while being retrieved from his cell.<ref name="msnbc coverage"/> Iraq's national security adviser, [[Mowaffak al-Rubaie]], told [[Al Arabiya]] television that Saddam refused to wear a black hood over his head and told him, "Don't be afraid."<ref name="cnn">{{cite news | url = http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/29/hussein/index.html | title = Hussein executed with 'fear in his face' | work = [[CNN]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref> The former president recited the [[Shahadah]], or Muslim profession of faith, but made no other remark as policemen escorted him to the scaffold.<ref name="dawn"/>
A senior Iraqi official who was involved in the events leading to Saddam's death was quoted as saying, "The Americans wanted to delay the execution by 15 days because they weren't keen on having him executed straight away. But during the day [prior to the execution] the prime minister's office provided all the documents they asked for and the Americans changed their minds when they saw the prime minister was very insistent. Then it was just a case of finalizing the details."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=78137 | title=Iraqi Sunnis vent anger over video of Saddam's hanging | publisher=[[The Daily Star (Bangladesh)|The Daily Star]] | date=2007-01-03 | accessdate=2007-01-03}}</ref> U.S. military spokesman [[Major_General#United_States|Maj. Gen.]] [[William B. Caldwell|William Caldwell]] told journalists in Baghdad that after "physical control" of Saddam was given to the Iraqi government, "the [[Multinational force in Iraq|multinational force]] had absolutely no direct involvement with [the execution] whatsoever."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://cbs2.com/national/topstories_story_003084722.html | title=U.S. Distances Itself From Saddam Hanging | publisher=[[CBS]] | date=2007-01-03 | accessdate=2007-01-03}}</ref> There were no U.S. representatives present in the execution room.<ref name="cnn"/><ref>{{cite news | first = Sudarsan | last = Raghavan | title = Saddam Hussein is Put to Death | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122900142.html | publisher = [[Washington Post]] | accessdate = 2006-12-30}}</ref>
Requesting comments for [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix]] - a debate over the use of disambiguation titles for episode articles of a TV show when no disambiguation is needed. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 21:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
: Please note that this is the same discussion as was already pointed to, two sections up. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 23:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
::Same discussion, but it was originally noted for (Lost) vs (Lost episode) instead of where the current discussion is at. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 00:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Reports circulated that Saddam's behavior was "submissive" and that he was carrying the [[Qur'an]] he had been keeping with him throughout his trial prior to his execution. Al-Rubiae, who was a witness to Saddam's execution, described Saddam as repeatedly shouting "down with [[Persian people|Persians]] and the Americans."<ref>{{cite news |title ='A Historic Day For Iraq'|url =http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,30000-witness_301206_0700,00.html| publisher =[[Sky News]]|date=2006-12-30|accessdate =2006-12-30}}</ref> Al-Rubaie reportedly asked Saddam if he had any remorse or fear, to which Saddam replied, "No, I am a militant and I have no fear for myself. I have spent my life in [[jihad]] and fighting aggression. Anyone who takes this route should not be afraid."<ref name="nyt">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/world/middleeast/31gallows.html?ex=1325221200&en=472d36ebe903eabd&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss | title=On the Gallows, Curses for U.S. and ‘Traitors’ | publisher=[[The New York Times]] | author=Marc Santora | date=2006-12-31 | accessdate=2007-01-03}}</ref>
== Star Trek example ==
[[Sami al-Askari]], a witness to the execution, said, "Before the rope was put around his neck, Saddam shouted, '[[takbir|Allah is great]]. The [[ummah|Muslim Ummah]] will be victorious and [[Palestine]] is [[Arab]].'"<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.enidnews.com/localnews/local_story_364011638.html?keyword=topstory | title = Saddam Hussein dies on the gallows, exiting the Iraqi stage after a long, brutal reign | work = [[Associated Press]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref> Saddam also stressed that the Iraqis should fight the Americans and the Persians.<ref>{{cite news | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6220087.stm | title = Witness to Saddam's death | work = [[BBC]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref> After the rope was secured, guards shouted various rebukes including "Muqtada! Muqtada! Muqtada!" in reference to [[Muqtada al-Sadr]]; Saddam repeated the name mockingly and rebuked the shouts stating, "Do you consider this bravery?"<ref name="nyt"/><ref>[http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CCE38D74-9851-4749-A85F-0B2D729B2C90.htm Attempts to anger Saddam moments before his execution]''Al Jazeera'', January 1, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2116900.ece Guards taunted Saddam in final seconds]''The Independent'', January 1, 2007.</ref><ref>"[http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/30/hussein/index.html Witness: Hussein's last words mock Shiite cleric]", ''CNN'', December 30, 2006. Retrieved December 30, 2006.</ref><ref name="cnncellphone">{{cite video|
Since it's being discussed on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines]] I thought it would be good to note this here as well. Here is the reason the Star Trek "exception example" was removed from the guidelines:
people=Carol Lin|
year=2006-12-30|
format=Windows Media|
title=[[Camera phone]] in Hussein's execution chamber|
publisher=CNN|
url=http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2006/12/30/lin.hussein.execution.web.video.affl&wm=10|
accessdate=2006-12-30}}</ref> A [[Shia Islam|Shi'a]] version of an Islamic prayer was also recited by some of those present in the room, an apparent sectarian insult against the [[Sunni Islam|Sunni]] Saddam.<ref>{{cite news |title ='Saddam hanging taunts evoke ugly past'|url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6221751.stm| publisher =BBC|date=2006-12-30|accessdate =2007-01-01}}</ref> One observer told Saddam, "Go to hell! [[Insha'Allah]]." Saddam replied, "The hell that is Iraq?"<ref>{{cite news |title ='"Fallen tyrant" taunted in Saddam video'| url =http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-12-31T153108Z_01_L31803504_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-SADDAM-TAUNTS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-worldNews-3| publisher =Reuters|date=2006-12-31|accessdate =2007-01-02}}</ref> Another man asked for quiet, saying, "Please, stop. The man is facing an execution."
Saddam began to recite the Shahadah again, an act of faith performed by [[Muslims]] prior to the time of death (if anticipated). As he neared the end of his second recitation, the platform dropped.<ref name="cnncellphone"/><ref name="cellphone">{{cite video|
To use a disambig title when it is not necessary, for style or consistency reasons seem to be against general [[Wikipedia:naming conventions|naming conventions]]. For example, one should title the [[Lost (TV series)|Lost]] episode "''Fire + Water''" as [[Fire + Water]] instead of [[Fire + Water (Lost)]], where "Fire + Water" doesn't exist as another article. Here are some discussions that seem to support this: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix]], [[Talk:Fire + Water#Requested move]], [[Talk:List of Torchwood episodes#Article names]]. One exception was given for this without explanation, Star Trek episodes.
people=Unidentified videographer| year=2006| title=Video| format=MMS| publisher=Anwarweb.net| url=http://www.metacafe.com/watch/362748/saddam_hussein_execution_amateur_footage/| accessdate=2006-12-30}}</ref> According to ''[[The New York Times]]'', the executioners "cheer their Shi'ite heroes so persistently that one observer [in the execution chambers] makes a remark about how the effort to rein in militias does not seem to be going well."<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/world/middleeast/01sunnis.html?ex=1325307600&en=9a4812fde9db44e5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss | title = For Sunnis, Dictator’s Degrading End Signals Ominous Dawn for the New Iraq | work = [[The New York Times]] |date= 2007-01-01 | accessdate = 2007-01-01 }}</ref> During the drop there was an audible crack indicating that his neck was broken.<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272610730.shtml | title = Saddam Hussein Hanging Video Shows Defiance, Taunts and Glee | work = [[National Ledger]] |date= 2007-01-01 | accessdate = 2007-01-20}}</ref> After Saddam was suspended for a few minutes, the doctor present listened with a [[stethoscope]] for a heartbeat. After he detected none, the rope was cut, and his body was placed in a [[coffin]].<ref name="alarabiya-lasthour"/>
==Burial==
I've been trying to find out how the Star Trek example got in the guideline in the first place, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=next&oldid=39926951 here's the first edit] I've seen it in. The talk page at that time did not have any mentioning of Star Trek, nor did the [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)/poll|poll]] that was taken a few days before. I found two places in the talk archive where Star Trek is mentioned:
Saddam's body was buried in his birthplace of [[Al-Awja]] in [[Tikrit]], [[Iraq]], near family members, including his two sons [[Uday Hussein|Uday]] and [[Qusay Hussein]], on [[December 31]] [[2006]] at 04:00 local time (01:00 [[Greenwich Mean Time|GMT]]).<ref name="burial">{{cite news | url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11669236/ | title = Iraqis gather in Saddam hometown after burial | work = [[Reuters]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref><ref name="buried with family">{{cite news | url = http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/30/hussein.funeral/index.html | title = Report: Saddam Hussein to be buried with sons | work = [[CNN]] |date= 2006-12-29 | accessdate = 2006-12-29 }}</ref><ref name="bbc burial">{{cite news | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6220677.stm | title = Report: Saddam is buried in home village | work = [[BBC]] |date= 2006-12-31 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref> His body was transported to Tikrit by a U.S. Military helicopter. Saddam was handed over from Iraqi Government possession to [[Sheikh]] Ali al-Nida, head of the Albu Nasir tribe and governor of [[Salaheddin]], to be buried.<ref name="burial"/><ref name="cnn burial">{{cite news | url = http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/31/hussein.funeral/index.html | title = Hussein buried in same cemetery as sons | work = [[CNN]] |date= 2006-12-31 | accessdate = 2006-12-31 }}</ref> Sheikh Ali al-Nida said, "He was cleaned and wrapped according to Islamic teachings. We didn't see any unnatural signs on his body." He was buried about three kilometers (2 mi) from his two sons in the same cemetery.<ref name="ap burial"/> The Iraqi government said they are not worried about political pilgrimages to his gravesite.<ref name="bbc burial"/>
Saddam's eldest daughter [[Raghad Hussein]], under [[Right of asylum|asylum]] in [[Jordan]], had asked that "his body be buried in [[Yemen]] temporarily until Iraq is liberated and it can be reburied in Iraq," a family spokesperson said by telephone.<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30825677.htm | title = Saddam daughter asking body be buried in Yemen | work = [[Reuters]] |date= 2006-12-29 | accessdate = 2006-12-29 }}</ref> The family also said his body might be buried in [[Ramadi]], citing safety concerns, though there are no plans to do this.<ref name="burial"/>
*[[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive2#Further discussion regarding this poll]] - about a non-episode Star Trek article where it was preferred to use a non-disambig title when it was not needed.
==Media coverage==
*[[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive1#Episode names]] - which does talk about episode articles and the use of disambig titles, but ironically was being used as an example of articles that don't disambig when not needed.
The primary news source for the execution was the state-run Iraqi television news station [[Al Iraqiya]]. A scrolling headline read, "Saddam's execution marks the end of a dark period of Iraq's history." The [[BBC]] noted that a doctor, a lawyer, and various officials, were present, and that a video recording of the execution was made.<ref name="bbc"/> [[Al Arabiya]] reported that Saddam's lawyer had confirmed Saddam's death. His death was also confirmed by Al Iraqiya. An announcer said, "criminal Saddam was hanged to death."<ref name="fox">{{cite news | url = http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,240057,00.html | title = Saddam Hussein Executed by Hanging in Iraq | work = [[Fox News Channel|FOX news]] |date= [[2006-12-29]] | accessdate = 2006-12-29 }}</ref>
Major news networks carried official video of the moments leading up to Saddam's execution. Pictures of Saddam's dead body in a shroud were also released by the Iraqi government. Saddam's death was recorded in [[HDTV]], but has not yet been released to the viewing public.<ref name="hdtv">{{cite web| url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16401644/site/newsweek| title = Videographer comments| accessdate = 2006-12-30|date= 2006-12-30| publisher = [[MSNBC]]}} </ref>
Had there been at least ''something'' that lead to this addition I would have likely discussed first before removing, but there was not. There is no major support for this, and it's very misleading. The inclusion of the Star Trek example is what mislead me to my own assumption that this was acceptable. If we have an exception in a guideline then the exception needs some explanation, some context. The Star Trek example has none, and its removal was appropriate. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
==Mobile phone video==
: I oppose your removing the information from the guideline (especially while you were involved in an active controversy about this in another part of Wikipedia). The information was useful, to show that there are multiple ways that episode titles can be handled. The Star Trek exception clearly affects hundreds of articles, as can be seen at [[:Category:Star Trek episodes]]. It's worth mentioning. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 02:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
While officially released footage of the event stopped short of showing the actual execution,<ref name="bbc"/> an amateur video shot using a [[camera phone]] from a staircase leading up to the gallows surfaced, containing low-quality footage of the entire hanging.<ref name="cellphone"/> The amateur footage was also notable for the fact that, unlike the official footage, it included sound: witnesses could be heard taunting Saddam.<ref name="cellphone2">{{cite news | url = http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070102/saddam-web-tv.htm | title = Saddam Execution Images Shown on TV, Web | author = Bauder, David | work = International Business Times |date= 2007-01-02 | accessdate = 2006-01-02 }}</ref> On [[January 3]], [[2007]], the Iraqi government arrested the guard who they believe made the mobile phone video.<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010300358.html| title = Official Held in Saddam Hanging Video | author = Abdul-Zahra, Qassim| work = [[Washington Post]] |date= [[2007-01-03]] | accessdate = 2007-01-03}}</ref> Iraqi National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie later held a press conference where he announced that three arrests had been made in connection with the investigation into the video taping and leak.<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13259309/| title = Arrests made in Saddam video case | author = Richard Engel and the Associated Press| work = [[NBC News]] |date= [[2007-01-03]] | accessdate = 2007-01-03}}</ref> A week later, another video surfaced on the Internet, which showed Saddam's body with a large neck wound. The video appeared to have been taken by a camera phone as well.<ref name="newvideo">{{cite news | url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6331584,00.html | title = New Video of Saddam's Corpse on Internet | author = Qassum Abdul-Zahra | work = [[Associated Press]]] |date= 2007-01-09 | accessdate = 2007-01-09 }}</ref>
==Reaction==
::I originally removed it long before we were in a dispute. Being in dispute alone is not a reason to keep a bad note that conflicts with other guidelines on naming conventions. It clearly has affected a lot of articles, and because of it we have a lot of cleanup to do. It's best not to make the job any bigger. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 03:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Reactions to Saddam's death were varied. Some strongly supported the execution, particularly those personally affected by Saddam's actions as leader. Some of these victims, however, wished to see him brought to trial for his other actions, alleged to have resulted in a much greater number of deaths than those he was convicted for. Some believed the execution would boost morale in Iraq, while others feared it would incite further violence. Many in the international community supported Saddam being brought to justice, but objected in particular to the use of [[capital punishment]], which is now abolished throughout most of Europe, South America, and Australia. Saddam's supporters condemned the action as unjust.
"The world will know that Saddam Hussein lived honestly, died honestly, and maintained his principles. He did not lie when he declared his trial null," said Saddam's lawyers in a statement.<ref name="msnbc coverage"/>
::: You removed it, without discussion, concurrent with the dispute at [[Talk:Fire + Water]] about a page move, even though that wording had been in place for months.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=77320340&oldid=66442562] Further, every time different wording was suggested, you simply reverted it without discussion.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=next&oldid=77394618 ][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=next&oldid=78765147][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=next&oldid=79180574] , and then in a display of profoundly bad faith, you then insisted that your version was "consensus", and that discussion was needed to ''restore'' the information that you had removed. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=next&oldid=84141191].For the record, this is my current recommendation of what should (re)-added to the Guideline page, in the section under "Episode articles":
:::<blockquote>''Certain shows such as [[:Category:Star Trek episodes|''Star Trek'']] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines|''Lost'']] may use different formats. When in doubt, it is best to make new episode articles consistent with the practice that is already in existence for that program.''
</blockquote>
::: I would also point you to [[Wikipedia:Guidelines]], which says, "''Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.''". --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
A spokeswoman for Saddam's daughters reported, "They felt very proud as they saw their father facing his executioners so bravely."<ref name="bbc reactions"/> In [[Amman]], the capital of [[Jordan]], Saddam's eldest daughter, [[Raghad Hussein]], joined protests against her father's execution.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6222975.stm Saddam's supporters vow revenge] ''BBC News'', [[2007-01-01]]</ref> Protesters expressed sentiment that Saddam is a [[martyr]] and that he was the only Arab leader who said no to the United States.<ref name="alarabiya-raghad">{{cite news |title=طفل باكستاني يشنق نفسه أثناء اللعب مقلدا إعدام صدام حسين (Raghad Saddam Hussein attends a protest in Jordan to protest the execution of her father) |publisher=Al-Arabiya |date=January 1, 2007 |url=http://www.alarabiya.net/Articles/2007/01/01/30399.htm |language=Arabic}}</ref>
::::I did remove it without discussion, because it was added without discussion, and you were trying to push an absurd and unjustified exception. Your current recommendation is without sound logic. A bad example is a bad example, no matter how many times you re-word it. Advice that is not easily agreed upon and that has clearly caused confusion is something that should be removed. Even if the example is allowed, the way the information was being presented clearly wasn't helpful. It provided no context, had no explanation whatsoever, and there was no "consensus" to include it. Just because no one noticed it for a while doesn't mean it gained consensus. It's not much different than removing unsourced text from an article, because there's nothing backing this example. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 06:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
According to reports from an official, there was dancing and [[Shia Islam|Shi'a]] chants around Saddam's body after the execution took place.<ref name="cnn"/> Two days after the execution, the Iraqi government launched an inquiry into the taunting and the way the execution was filmed.<ref name="pakistantimes">{{cite news |url=http://www.pakistantimes.net/2007/01/02/top9.htm |title=Iraq to probe filming of Saddam Hanging |publisher=Pakistan Times |date=January 2, 2007}}</ref>
== RfC Episode Article Naming conventions ==
United States' forces braced for a backlash of violence in Iraq due to the execution. [[President of the United States|United States President]] [[George W. Bush]] stated that Saddam's death will not end the violence in Iraq.<ref name="president">{{cite web | url = http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061229-15.html | title = President Bush's Statement on Execution of Saddam Hussein | accessdate = 2006-12-30 | author = George W. Bush | authorlink = George W. Bush | title = President Bush's Statement on Execution of Saddam Hussein | accessdate = 2006-12-30 | author = George W. Bush | authorlink = George W. Bush |date= 2006-12-29 | publisher = [[White House#The Whitehouse.gov website|Whitehouse.gov]] | quote = Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy [...]}}</ref> In Tikrit, Iraq, where Saddam was buried, police barred entrances to and departures from the city for four days as a safety precaution.<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.spokesmanreview.com/ap/story.asp?AP_ID=D8MBGAF80 | title = Saddam Hussein executed for war crimes | work = [[Associated Press]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref>
I am starting this as there is already four discussions on this page regaurding this issue, also It has come up on [[Talk:Heroes (TV series)]] and [[Talk:Jericho (TV series)]] and though I'm not involved I understand from this page that the debate is also raging (poetic license) on [[Talk:Lost (TV series)]]. I am going to try to detail the options as I see it and then give my recomendation.
*<small>The current debate on the Lost articles is actually on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines]], for anyone who's interested. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 20:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC) </small>
===Iraqi reaction===
'''Summary of the issue'''
====Politicians====
In a statement, [[Prime Minister of Iraq|Prime Minister]] [[Nouri al-Maliki]] said, "Justice, in the name of the people, has carried out the death sentence against the criminal Saddam, who faced his fate like all tyrants, frightened and terrified during a hard day which he did not expect."<ref name="bbc reactions">{{cite news | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6219861.stm | title = Saddam death 'ends dark chapter' | work = [[BBC]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref> He also stated, "Your generous and pure land has got rid—and for ever—of the filth of the dictator and a black page of Iraq's history has been turned and the tyrant has died."<ref name="Iraq response">{{cite news | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6218597.stm | title = Saddam hanged: Reaction in quotes | work = [[BBC]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref> He also said that Saddam Hussein does not represent any group or sect of the Iraqi people.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.alarabiya.net/Articles/2006/12/30/30347.htm |language=Arabic |title=مقتل وجرح 75 عراقيا في الكوفة (The killing and wounding of 75 Iraqis in Kufa) |date=December 30, 2006 |publisher=Al Arabiya}}</ref>
"[Iraqis] have been waiting for justice to be executed, and I think that Iraqis have received the news that they've been waiting for, for too many years," said Iraqi Oil Minister [[Hussain al-Shahristani]].<ref name="Iraq response"/>
Currently there is a bit of confusion since [[WP:D]] says that the first article with a given name should be just that name. However in specific to episodic television episode articles, [[WP:TV-NC]] says to reference the guidlines at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes]]. Since the project guidlines aren't specific every one seems to be pushing for their own preffered version of NC. This RfC seeks to define a single NC for Television Episode articles.
"The execution of Saddam Hussein is a big crime. Saddam Hussein was a prisoner of war and was arrested by the US forces, and not by the Iraqi government. It is a crime with which they wanted to cover up many things," a [[Sunni Islam|Sunni]] politician, [[Khalaf al-Ulayyan]] said.<ref name="Iraq response"/>
--<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']] | </span></small> 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
"I don't think it will make much difference because the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that very drastic measures have to be taken to confront the militias and restore law and order," said [[Adnan Pachachi]]. "Of course, he has some supporters in Iraq—some of them are armed and they may commit acts of violence and so on—but I don't think it will make much difference, frankly."<ref name="Iraq response"/>
===Potential Guidelines===
The first chief judge who presided over Saddam Hussein's trial, [[Rizgar Mohammed Amin]], has said the execution was illegal, citing the beginning of the Eid al-Adha festival for Iraqi Sunnis, during which executions are banned, and Iraqi law that executions may only be carried out 30 days ''after'' the appeal court's decision on the sentencing. The appeals court's [[December 26]], [[2006]] ruling stated that the sentence was to be carried out within 30 days.<ref name="judge reaction">{{cite news |url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1885354,00050004.htm |title=Former Saddam judge says execution violates Iraqi law |publisher=[[Agence France-Presse]] |date=January 1, 2007}}</ref>
#'''Use the existing naming convention from [[WP:NC]] and [[WP:D]] ("Disambiguate only when necessary")'''
#: Example: [[The Dalek Invasion of Earth]], [[The 23rd Psalm]], [[Goo Goo Gai Pan]], [[The Front (The Simpsons)]]
#'''Articles can be named <EpTitle> (NameOfSeries)'''
#: Example: [[The Greater Good (Lost)]]
#'''Articles can be named <EpTitle> (NameOfSeries episode)'''
#: Example: [[Darmok (TNG episode)]]
The execution will also prevent trials for other cases, including the [[chemical weapon]]s attacks on [[Halabja]] in 1988.<ref name="bbc-arabreactions">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6219471.stm |title=Arab reaction to Saddam execution |publisher=BBC |date=December 30, 2006}}</ref> The Center of Halabja against Anfalization and Genocide of the Kurds (C.H.A.K.) disapproved of the execution, without having Saddam tried for other cases including the massacre of 8,000 [[Barzani Kurds]] in 1983, chemical attacks on [[Sardasht]], the 1988 massacres on [[Al-Anfal Campaign|Anfal]], and other crimes.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=13821 |title=The execution of Saddam Hussein without judgment on the Anfal Genocide |publisher=KurdishMedia |date=December 30, 2006}}</ref> At the time of his execution, Saddam was on trial, facing charges of [[genocide]] at Anfal, which resulted in an estimated 180,000 deaths.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-victims31dec31,0,3803754.story?coll=la-home-headlines |title=Victims have mixed feelings about Saddam's death |publisher=Los Angeles Times |author=Zavis, Alexandra |date=December 30, 2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D312F0DF-0802-4F6C-8299-626DC7F73CD3.htm |title=US urged not to hand over Saddam |publisher=Al Jazeera |date=December 28, 2006}}</ref> "Of course, Saddam has committed too many crimes. He deserves for those crimes capital punishment. But so quickly done, so quickly executed . . . and only in one case—it would leave the other cases and leave a lot of secrets without being known," said an [[Iraqi Kurdistan|Iraqi Kurdish]] politician, Mahmoud Osman.<ref name="Iraq response"/>
====Notification====
I created <nowiki>{{User:Argash/TVEpNCRfC}}</nowiki> for placement on appropriate talk pages. Feel free to put on talk pages where you deem appropriate to direct people to this discussion.
===Poll=Populace====
Shias in Iraq celebrated the execution while Sunni towns saw protests.<ref name="bbc reactions"/><ref name="msnbc coverage"/> In [[Sadr City]], [[Basra]], and [[Najaf]] citizens danced in the streets and honked their car horns with jubilance. In [[Tikrit]], [[Samarra]], and [[Ramadi]], however, there are reports of protests.<ref name="bbc reactions"/> David MacDougall, a Fox News reporter located in [[Baghdad]], has stated that there has been what is thought to be celebratory gunfire in Baghdad. However, the BBC's correspondent in Baghdad, [[John Simpson]], indicated there had been no more gunfire than is normally heard on the city's streets.
People in Iraq expressed mixed sentiments, with some glad to see justice done. "Now, he is in the garbage of history," said Jawad Abdul-Aziz, a civilian who lost his father, three brothers and 22 cousins because of Saddam.<ref name="msnbc coverage"/> Ali Hamza, a professor in the [[Shi'a Islam|Shi'a]] town of [[Al Diwaniyah]] said, "Now all the victims’ families will be happy because Saddam got his just sentence."<ref name="msnbc coverage"/> Some were content to see Saddam gone, but expressed concerns about the instability in Iraq. A 34-year-old candy store owner in Baghdad, Haider Hamed, a Shi'a who lost his uncle due to Saddam, commented, "He's gone, but our problems continue. We brought problems on ourselves after Saddam because we began fighting Shi'a on Sunni and Sunni on Shi'a."<ref name="ap burial"/>
Sign to indicate which options you agree with.
Other Iraqis expressed outrage and viewed Saddam as a [[martyr]]. "The president, the leader Saddam Hussein is a [[martyr]] and God will put him along with other martyrs. Do not be sad nor complain because he has died the death of a holy warrior," said [[Sheik]] Yahya al-Attawi, a [[cleric]] at a [[mosque]].<ref name="msnbc coverage"/> Protests occurred in [[Samarra]], where Sunnis broke into the [[Al-Askari Mosque]],<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Sunnis-angry-over-Saddam-hanging/2007/01/02/1167500093669.html |title=Sunnis angry over Saddam hanging |publisher=Sydney Morning Herald |date=January 2, 2007}}</ref> and a riot broke out at Padush prison in [[Mosul]].<ref name="pakistantimes"/>
====Poll Question 1: Disambiguate episode article titles only when necessary====
=====Support=====
A "support" vote means the disambiguation policy for television episode articles should be the same as the general policy: a title only should contain a parenthetical disambiguation if the title is ambiguous, and there are other articles with the same title.
Several hours after the execution was reported, a [[car bomb]] exploded in a market in the [[Shi'a Islam|Shi'ite]] town of [[Kufa]] in southern Iraq, resulting in at least 30 fatalities; another bomb in a busy market of Baghdad killed another 36.<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/30/iraq.main/index.html | title = Car bomb kills at least 30 in Kufa | work = [[CNN]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref> It is unknown whether this is related to Saddam's execution.
#'''Support'''. [[User:Izzy Dot|Izzy Dot]] ([[User talk:Izzy Dot|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Izzy|contribs]]) 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Shannernanner|<span style="font-family: Palatino"><font color="indigo">Shannernanner</font></span>]] 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Thedemonhog|theDemonHog]] 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] 02:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 03:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 03:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Izhmal ([[User:Izhmal|User page]] | [[user talk:Izhmal|User talk page]]) 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkblue">日本穣</font>]]<sup>[[Help:Japanese|?]] · <small>[[User talk:Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">Talk</font>]] <font color="darkblue">to</font> [[User:Nihonjoe|Nihon]][[WP:JA|j]]o[[WP:EA|'''<font color="darkgreen">e</font>''']]</small></sup> 03:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - Just the episode name, then X (Y), then X (Y episode), if a previous version is taken. KISS - [[User:Peregrinefisher|Peregrinefisher]] 04:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. -- [[User:Wikipedical|Wikipedical]] 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' and use ''(NameOfSeries episode)'' if required -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 07:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' we should consistently apply rules, not seek consistency by breaking them. -- [[User:Percy Snoodle|Percy Snoodle]] 10:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- [[User:Harris000|Harris]] 13:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong Support'''--[[User:Ac1983fan/esperanza|<font color="green">A</font>]][[User:Ac1983fan|c1983fan]]<sup>[[User_talk:Ac1983fan|(yell at me)]]</sup> 16:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' don't use disambiguation unless the majority of articles in the series already require it. (i.e. don't just slap disambiguation onto every episode article of a series for consistency. But if the majority of episode articles already have disambiguation because they ''need'' it, then putting putting disambiguation on the remaining minority may be acceptable.) --[[User talk:Yaksha|<font color="#330066"><b>`/aksha</b></font>]] 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Anþony|Anþony]] 08:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''': disambiguation and article titles are not grouping mechanisms; Categories and "List of" articles are. -- [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] 04:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' — [[User:AnemoneProjectors|AnemoneProj]]''<font color="green">[[User:AnemoneProjectors/Esperanza|e]]</font>''[[User:AnemoneProjectors|ctors]] <small>([[User talk:AnemoneProjectors|talk]])</small> 11:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' "Predisambiguation" (disambiguation when no known ambiguity issues exist) should not be supported on any articles. — [[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 16:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:GhostStalker|GhostStalker]] 22:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
=====Oppose==World reaction===
{{Wikiquote|Transwiki:Execution of Saddam Hussein|Execution of Saddam Hussein}}
An "oppose" vote means the disambiguation policy for television episode articles should be an exception as the general policy: a television episode's article title should always include the name of the series it is in, regardless of whether or not the episode title is ambiguous.
At the time of Saddam's capture in December 2003, U.S. President [[George W. Bush]] expressed his opinion that Saddam deserved "the ultimate justice," alluding to the death penalty.<ref>{{cite news |title=Bush calls for death sentence for Saddam |publisher=Financial Times |date=December 17, 2003 |author=Alden, Edward, Marianne Brun-Rovet, James Harding}}</ref> This put the United States at odds with signatory countries to the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] (article 3), and other international treaties that prohibit the death penalty and the [[extradition]] of suspects to countries where capital punishment may be carried out.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Juvenile Execution, Terrorist Extradition, and Supreme Court Discretion to Consider International Death Penalty Jurisprudence |author=Burleson, Elizabeth |year=2005 |journal=68 Alb. L. Rev. 909}}</ref>
====Opposition====
# '''Strongly oppose''' <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/[[User:MatthewFenton|Fenton, Matthew]] [[User talk:MatthewFenton|Lexic Dark]] [[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|52278 Alpha 771]]</font></small> 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Following the execution of Saddam Hussein, leaders around the world issued statements. Some leaders of India,<ref>{{cite news
# '''Oppose''': I prefer using a single, unified format for all episode titles, as indicated below. And FWIW, I ''don't'' have the luxury of checking WP many times per day, so try not to rush things. - [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]] → [[User_talk:SigmaEpsilon|Σ]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/edit_count/Count.php?username=SigmaEpsilon&submit=Count Ε]</span> 03:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
|title =Disappointment, condemnation in India over Saddam hanging
# '''Oppose''': I like the person above me would like a single unified format as it looks better, and shows that they are part of a seires. - [[User:EnsRedShirt|EnsRedShirt]] 07:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
|url =http://www.indiaenews.com/india/20061230/34158.htm
# '''Oppose''': ditto those above me --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']]</span></small> 01:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
| publisher =India eNews
# '''Oppose''' --[[User:EEMeltonIV|EEMeltonIV]] 02:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
|date=2006-12-30
#'''Oppose sometimes'''. I think that this poll is badly-worded, and further, the wording has been changed multiple times since it was created, so I don't think that everyone's even entirely clear on what they're supporting or opposing anymore. But to be clear on my own opinion: I am opposed to having a naming convention guideline which tries to write in stone that ''all'' television episodes on Wikipedia ''must'' use the exact same format. I think that ''most'' shows can use a similar format, but that some exceptions are valid (for example, the [[:Category:Star Trek episodes|''Star Trek'' episodes]] have been using a slightly different format for a long time, without a problem). Just as is said in [[Wikipedia:Guideline]]: ''Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.'' So the current poll wording of, "a television episode's article title should always include the name of the series it is in," does not accurately reflect the third "flexibility" option which I think is a better choice. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 08:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
|accessdate =2006-12-30}}</ref>
#'''Oppose''' [[User:Oggleboppiter|Oggleboppiter]] 09:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Cambodia,<ref name="bangkokpostbreakingnews">{{cite news
| url = http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=115606
| title = Thailand, Asia hope for Iraq peace
| work = Bangkok Post, Breaking News
|date= Saturday, 30 December 2006}}</ref>
and
Sri Lanka,<ref>{{cite news
| url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-12-30-saddam-reaction_x.htm
| title = World leaders welcome, condemn Saddam's execution
| work = [[Associated Press]]
|date= 12/30/2006 2:17 AM ET}}</ref> as well as
Brazil,<ref name="international comments">{{cite news
| url = http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/29/hussein.world.reaction/index.html
| title = Hussein execution: World reaction - CNN.com
| work = [[CNN]]
|date= 2006-12-29
| accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref>
expressed opposition to the execution. In India, some public demonstrations were held opposing Saddam Hussein's death, carrying out rallies and burning effigies of U.S. President [[George W. Bush]].<ref>{{cite news | title = CPI(M) cadres burn effigy of George Bush | url = http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/01/stories/2007010107780300.htm | publisher = The Hindu | date=2006-12-31 | accessdate = 2007-01-01}}</ref>
Leaders and governments of many European countries also expressed strong disapproval of using capital punishment in this and any case, including Austria,<ref name= AustrianReaction>{{en icon}} {{cite web
====Poll Question 2: Format of the disambiguation title ====
| url=http://www.bmaa.gv.at/view.php3?f_id=12299&LNG=en&version=
This section of the poll is regarding what form parenthetical disambiguations for television episodes should take. This is for all parenthetical disambiguations for television episodes, regardless of whether all episodes have parenthetical disambiguations, or only those which are ambiguous.
|title=Statement from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs on the execution of Saddam
|accessdate= 2007-01-03}}</ref>
Denmark,<ref name="jp-ritzau">{{cite news | url = http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=4160622 | title = Fogh: Vi fordømmer Hussein, men er imod dødsstraf | work = [[Jyllands-Posten]] |date= 2006-12-30 | language = Danish }}</ref><ref name="dr.dk">{{cite news | url = http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Udland/2006/12/30/102119.htm | title = Blandede internationale reaktioner på Saddams død | work = [[Danmarks Radio]] |date= 2006-12-30 | language = Danish }}</ref>
Finland,<ref name="yle-tuomioja">{{cite news | url = http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/vasen/id50222.html | title = Saddam hirtettiin aamulla | work = [[YLE|YLE 24]] |date= 2006-12-30 | language = Finnish }}</ref> Germany,<ref name="GermanyMerkel">{{de icon}} {{cite news | url = http://www.bundesregierung.de/nn_1264/Content/DE/Artikel/2006/12/2006-12-30-merkel-zu-hinrichtung-saddam.html | title = Pressestatement von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel zum Tode von Saddam Hussein | language = de | publisher = [[Bundesregierung]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref>
Italy,<ref name="Iraq response"/>
the Netherlands,<ref name="DutchReaction">{{cite news | url = http://tros.nl/index.php?id=451 | title = Vice-PM Zalm in TROS Kamerbreed | language = nl | publisher = TROS |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref>, Norway,<ref>{{cite news |title =The execution of Saddam Hussein|url =http://www.dep.no/ud/english/news/news/032171-430062/dok-bn.html| publisher =Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs|date =2006-12-30|accessdate =2006-12-31}}</ref>
Portugal,<ref>{{cite news |title ={{pt icon}} Governo português contra execução de Saddam (Portuguese Government against Saddam execution)|url =http://www.portugaldiario.iol.pt/noticia.php?id=756657&div_id=| publisher =Portugal Diario|date=2006-12-29|accessdate =2006-12-30}}</ref>
Spain,<ref name="cri-Spain">{{cite news | url = http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2049929,00.html | title = 'Don't hang Saddam Hussein' | work = SA |date= 2006-12-29 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref>
Sweden,<ref name="cri-Sweden">{{cite news | url = http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=148&a=601276&previousRenderType=6 | title = 'Regeringen beklagar Saddams avrättning'| work = SA |date= 2006-12-29 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref> and Switzerland<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.admin.ch/aktuell/00089/index.html?lang=en&msg-id=10023 | title = Execution of former Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein| work = |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref> and the United Kingdom.<ref name= UKReaction>{{cite web
| url=http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1238201.php
|title=Violence, condemnation, jubilation as Saddam is hanged
|accessdate= 2007-01-02}}</ref> The [[European Commissioner]] for [[Development aid]] [[Louis Michel]] stated that the execution of Saddam Hussein is against the fundamental principles of the [[European Union]] (EU). The EU is against the death penalty, regardless of the crimes committed. "It is not a big day for democracy," Michel stated to the [[RTBF]]. "The EU is in fierce opposition to the death penalty and there is no exception to that fundamental principle. Cruelty is not to be answered with cruelty. I believe that there were other possible means to revenge the cruelties committed by Saddam. The death penalty is not the right answer." He feared that the execution of Saddam will have a negative impact and that the former dictator will emerge as a martyr. "You don't fight barbarism with acts that I deem as barbaric. The death penalty is not compatible with democracy," he told Reuters.<ref name="Michel's reaction">{{cite news
| url = http://www.kanaalz.be/nl/Belga/BelgaNieuws.asp?ArticleID=74253&SectionID=2
| title = Louis Michel vindt executie Saddam in strijd met basisprincipe EU
| work = [[Kanaal Z]]
|date= 2006-12-30
| language = Dutch }}</ref> The Rev. Federico Lombardi, of the [[Holy See|Vatican]], expressed sadness<ref name="forbescomments">{{cite news | url = http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/feeds/ap/2006/12/30/ap3289424.html | title = Comments on Death Penalty for Saddam | work = Associated Press |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30}}</ref> and disapproval of the death penalty.<ref name="forbescomments"/>
Chile,<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.elmostrador.cl/modulos/noticias/constructor/noticia_new.asp?id_noticia=206416 | title = Gobierno chileno rechaza ejecución de Hussein y espera su anulación | work = [[List of Chilean newspapers|El Mostrador]] |date= 2006-12-29 | accessdate = 2006-12-30}}</ref> Belgium,<ref name="VRT_execution_quotes">[http://www.flandersnews.be/cm/flandersnews.be/News/061230_reactions%2Bto%2BSaddam%2Bexecution Mixed feelings over Saddam's execution], VRT flandersnews.be, December 30, 2006</ref> Russia,<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Iraq/207995 | title = EU official condemns Saddam hanging, Russia voices concern | publisher = Al Bawaba |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30}}</ref> and Serbia<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2006&mm=12&dd=30&nav_id=225535&nav_category=78 | title = Razlicite reakcije na smrt Huseina | publisher = B92 |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30}}</ref> expressed disapproval of capital punishment in this and any case, and also expressed concerns about implications of the execution on stability in Iraq.
[[Hosni Mubarak]], [[President of Egypt]], called the execution shameful, unthinkable, and stated that the execution turned the ex-president into a martyr. "I am not saying whether Saddam did or did not deserve the death penalty. I am also not getting into the question of whether this court is lawful under occupation. I knew they wanted to administer the sentence before the end of the year, but why on the Muslim holiday? People are executed all over the world, but what happened in Baghdad on the first day of Eid al-Adha was unthinkable. I didn't believe it was happening," he said. "In the end, no one will ever forget the circumstances and the way in which Saddam was executed. They turned him into a martyr, and the problems in Iraq remained."<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/egypt/?id=19058 | title = Mubarak: execution turned Saddam into martyr | publisher = Middle East Online |date= 2007-01-05 | accessdate = 2007-01-28}}</ref>
=====(NameOfSeries) =====
#'''Support''' --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']] |</span></small> 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 20:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC) <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] ([[User talk:MatthewFenton|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
#'''Support''' -[[User:Xornok|Xornok]] 03:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' (based on recent clarification); that is, if disambiguation is necessary, use (NameOfSeries) unless that is itself ambiguous (e.g. [[Dalek (Doctor Who episode)]], because [[Dalek (Doctor Who)]] might be ambiguous). —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', per Josiah Rowe; when/if necessary, use this form of disambiguation. I did think about this for quite a while; the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic]] section recommends using the simpler disambig when choosing between "disambiguating with a generic class or with a context." [[User:Shannernanner|<span style="font-family: Palatino"><font color="indigo">Shannernanner</font></span>]] 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' when disambiguation is necessary, use this short and simple add-on. Adding the word episode only helps when there is another conflict, such as an episode being named after a character. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 18:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)<s> striking my support if the change stays. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 20:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)</s> restoring support due to new wording. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Use the minimum disambiguation required. -[[User:Anþony|Anþony]] 08:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', based on the [[WP:D]] advice of "choose whichever is simpler", and the example preference of "mythology" ( ~ NameOfSeries) over "mythological figure" ( ~ NameOfSeries episode). -- [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] 04:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' — [[User:AnemoneProjectors|AnemoneProj]]''<font color="green">[[User:AnemoneProjectors/Esperanza|e]]</font>''[[User:AnemoneProjectors|ctors]] <small>([[User talk:AnemoneProjectors|talk]])</small> 11:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Of course, adding the term '''episode''' to the name of the series in the parenthetical remarks is appropriate when ''required'' for disambiguation. — [[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 16:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''', per above. <strong><font style="color: #082567">[[User:SergeantBolt|S]]</font>[[User:SergeantBolt/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]]<font style="color: #082567">[[User:SergeantBolt|rgeantBolt]]</font> ([[User_talk:SergeantBolt|t]],[[Special:Contributions/SergeantBolt|c]])</strong> 18:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[[Terry Davis]], Secretary General of the [[Council of Europe]], an international organization of which almost all European states are members, made an official statement condemning the execution: ”The trial of Saddam Hussein was a missed opportunity... It was an opportunity for Iraq to join the civilised world. The former Iraqi dictator was a ruthless criminal who deserved to be punished, but it was wrong to kill him. Saddam Hussein is no longer paying for his crimes; he is simply dead... The death penalty is cruel and barbaric, and I call on the Iraqi authorities to abolish it. It is late, but not too late, for Iraq to join the great majority of civilised and democratic countries in the world who have already abolished the death penalty.”<ref>Council of Europe press release, [https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1078399&BackColorInternet=F5CA75&BackColorIntranet=F5CA75&BackColorLogged=A9BACE 817(2006)]</ref>
=====(NameOfSeries episode)=====
# '''Support''' --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 20:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/[[User:MatthewFenton|Fenton, Matthew]] [[User talk:MatthewFenton|Lexic Dark]] [[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|52278 Alpha 771]]</font></small> 20:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]] → [[User_talk:SigmaEpsilon|Σ]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~essjay/edit_count/Count.php?username=SigmaEpsilon&submit=Count Ε]</span> 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - There are several episodes which are named after a character, place, event etc. even within that fictional universe, therefore appending 'episode' makes it clear it's an article about an episode, not the place, character etc. [[User:Marky1981|Marky1981]] 22:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' --[[User:EEMeltonIV|EEMeltonIV]] 22:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support''' per Marky1981 --[[User:Mnemeson|Mnem]][[User:Mnemeson/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User_Talk:Mnemeson|son]] 22:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# '''Support'''--[[User:Opark 77|Opark 77]] 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
# <s>'''Support''' --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']] | </span></small> 00:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)</s>
#'''Support''' --[[User:EnsRedShirt|EnsRedShirt]] 02:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Somewhat support''' I don't feel strongly about this, but if I had to make a choice it would be to include the word episode. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 02:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 18:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC) In general I prefer generic nouns over fields as disambiguator
#'''Support''' Now, are the poll questions going to actually stay the same this time? :P To clarify - disambig only when necessary, and when necessary, use "(NameOfSeries episode)" -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 07:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Oggleboppiter|Oggleboppiter]] 09:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps one of the most vocal European leaders has been [[Romano Prodi]], the [[Prime Minister of Italy]], who announced that his [[Politics of Italy|Government]] would be campaigning at the UN for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty.<ref name="Prodi's reaction">{{cite news
===Further comments===
| url = http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=125451&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17
| title = Italy will seek ban on death penalty
| work = [[Gulf Times]]
|date= 2007-1-3
| language = English}}</ref> A number of Italian political figures and parties have expressed disgust at the execution, and Prodi plans to use Italy's recent admission as a temporary member of the [[UN Security Council]] to campaign the [[United Nations General Assembly|General Assembly]] to adopt a moratorium.
In Turkey, the leader of the main opposition [[Republican People's Party (Turkey)|Republican People's Party]], [[Deniz Baykal]], expressed sorrow over the execution of Saddam Hussein, saying, "It is impossible to understand the rejoicing of those who put pressure on every country, including Turkey, for years to abolish the death sentence."<ref>{{cite news |title =CHP leader Baykal expresses sorrow over execution of Saddam|url =http://haber.tnn.net/haber_detay.asp?ID=1630601&Cat=ENG| publisher =TNN Haber|date =2006-12-30|accessdate =2006-12-31}}</ref>
I guess now that I have summed up the issue I will note that the option that I prefer is the second as it's unifying, descriptive and not overly wordy.
The [[Palestinian territories|Palestinian Authority]] expressed opposition to the execution, and sadness over the demise of their steadfast ally.<ref name="Haaretz_execution_quotes">{{cite news | url = http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807388.html | title = Saddam mourned | work = [[Haaretz]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref> [[Hamas]] called the execution of Saddam a "political assassination."<ref>{{cite news |title=Reactions to Saddam Hussein’s execution |url=http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=18985 |publisher=Middle East Online |date=2006-12-30 |accessdate=2006-12-31}}</ref> Saudi Arabia expressed "surprise and dismay" and regretted the "politicisation" of the trial.<ref>{{cite news |title=Iran welcomes Saddam execution |url=http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EFDB757E-8044-46E0-8896-FF19DFF78F5F.htm |publisher=Al Jazeera |date=December 30, 2006}}</ref> A "house of condolences" where people can gather to mourn Saddam was opened in [[Bethlehem]]. The organizers hung Iraqi flags, pictures of Saddam and broadcast Iraqi revolutionary songs. Palestinians rallied in other cities for the Iraqi leader as well. A Palestinian street and school has been reported to be named after Saddam Hussein, as well as a youth soccer tournament.<ref>[http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Jan2007.htm Palestinian Media Watch - Jan 2007 Bulletin]</ref>
Obviously this is not an exhaustive list of pros v cons but it should be enough to get an idea and debate the issue. I will be posting this to [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies]] and hopefully we can come to a concensus and make a unifying standard.
A [[Reuters]]' reporter based in Afghanistan cited a top [[Taliban]] commander saying the death of Saddam Hussein "...will boost the morale of Muslims. The jihad in Iraq will be intensified and attacks on invader forces will increase."<ref name="reuters-tal">{{cite news | url = http://mobile.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL149654.htm?=amp&_lite_=1 | title = Taliban says Saddam's execution to intensify jihad | work = Reuters |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref> Fauzan Al Anshori, from the Islamic group of [[Indonesian Mujahedeen Council|Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia]], said Bush, too, should stand trial. "Given the crimes blamed on Saddam, it is unfair if George Bush is not also put before an international tribunal," he said. "Saddam was executed for killing 148 people, Iraqi Shi'a Muslims, while Bush is responsible for the killing of about 600,000 Iraqis since the March 2003 invasion."<ref name="thehindu">{{cite news | url = http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200612301772.htm | title = World leaders welcome, condemn Saddam's execution | work = [[The Hindu]] News Update Service |date= Saturday, December 30, 2006 : 1710 Hrs}}</ref>
--<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']] | </span></small> 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
====Respect and concerns====
:There is also a discussion about this at [[Talk:The New and Improved Carl Morrissey]], <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/[[User:MatthewFenton|Fenton, Matthew]] [[User talk:MatthewFenton|Lexic Dark]] [[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|52278 Alpha 771]]</font></small> 14:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Many other governments, including Canada,<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/International/2006/12/29/012-reax-saddam-pays.shtml | title = Exécution de Saddam Hussein: réactions aux antipodes | work = [[Radio-Canada]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30}}</ref>
Indonesia,<ref name="thehindu"/>
Pakistan,<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.app.com.pk/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1310&Itemid=2 | title = Saddam’s execution “sad incident” : PM | work = Associated Press of Pakistan |date= Saturday, 30 December 2006}}</ref>
Thailand,<ref name="bangkokpostbreakingnews"/> and
Greece,<ref name= GreekReaction>{{el icon}} {{cite web| url=http://world.flash.gr//cosmosl/2006/12/29/30524id/ |title=Εκτελέστηκε ("Executed") |work= Flash.gr news site |accessdate= 2006-12-30}}</ref>
expressed concerns and wishes for stability in Iraq, without passing judgment on whether or not Saddam should have been executed. Respect for the Iraqi judicial process and the judgment in this case was expressed by many other leaders and government officials, including those of [[Afghanistan]], the [[People's Republic of China]],<ref name="HINDU_execution">[http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200612301665.htm Iraqi affairs should be decided by Iraqis: China], The Hindu, December 30, 2006</ref> [[Japan]],<ref name="international comments"/> the [[Czech Republic]], [[France]],<ref name="international comments"/> [[Germany]],<ref name="GermanyMerkel">{{de icon}} {{cite news | url = http://www.bundesregierung.de/nn_1264/Content/DE/Artikel/2006/12/2006-12-30-merkel-zu-hinrichtung-saddam.html | title = Pressestatement von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel zum Tode von Saddam Hussein | language = de | publisher = [[Bundesregierung]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref> [[Iceland]],<ref name="Iceland reaction"> {{cite web|url=http://mbl.is/mm/frettir/innlent/frett.html?nid=1244451|title='''(Icelandic)''' Stjórnvöld virða niðurstöðu íraskra dómstóla|accessdate=2006-12-30}}</ref> [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]],<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=CWSNKFCWQLOJ | title = Ahern: We must respect Iraqi right to hang Saddam | work = breakingnews.ie |date= 30 December 2006 14:03}}</ref> the [[United Kingdom]],<ref>{{cite news | url = http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=UKNews1&storyID=2006-12-30T041326Z_01_L30161566_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ-SADDAM-BRITAIN.xml&WTmodLoc=HP-C1-TopStories-4 | title = Beckett says Saddam held to account for crimes | work = [[Reuters]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30}}</ref> [[Australia]],<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20714573-2,00.html | title = Verdict a 'victory for freedom' | publisher = [[The Daily Telegraph]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref> and [[New Zealand]].<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0612/S00479.htm | title = Hussein’s death ends a troubled chapter | work=Scoop |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref>
====Support====
::I've done what I can to clean it up. Let's hope something good comes out of this. [[User:Izzy Dot|Izzy Dot]] ([[User talk:Izzy Dot|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Izzy|contribs]]) 19:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The [[List of Presidents of Peru|Peruvian president]], [[Alan García]], expressed approval for the execution of Saddam Hussein: "He deserved the maximum sentence in his country" and was "guilty of genocide" for using chemical weapons against other peoples for their religion or their racial origin. García disagreed "with the fact that the trial was made in an occupied country. I don’t know if he was hanged for his crimes or just by the occupying forces."<ref>{{cite news| url = http://www.elcomercioperu.com.pe/EdicionOnline/Html/2006-12-30/onEcPolitica0642074.html| title = Alan García de acuerdo con la ejecución de Sadam Hussein| work = [[El Comercio]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30}}</ref> [[Israel]]<ref>{{cite news| url = http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1230/husseins1.html | title = Dark chapter in history closed says Iraqi PM | work = RTE |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30}}</ref> and [[Poland]] both expressed approval of the execution.<ref name="smh">{{cite news |url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/after-the-gallows-a-sombre-consensus-that-justice-was-served/2007/01/01/1167500060560.html |title=After the gallows, a sombre consensus that justice was served |publisher=Sydney Morning Herald |date=January 2, 2007}}</ref> A spokesman for Poland's president said, "justice has been meted out to a criminal who murdered thousands of people in Iraq."<ref name="smh"/>
[[Iran]]'s Deputy Foreign Minister [[Hamid Reza Asefi]] stated, "With regard to Saddam's execution, it amounts to a victory of the Iraqi people as they were the winners by his fall [...] Saddam's regime was overthrown because the Iraqi people did not support him. It is crystal clear that the United States should not misinterpret his fall and take the credit for itself. [...] An investigation into the [[Iran-Iraq War|Iraqi invasion of Iran]] (1980-1988) and of Kuwait (1990) could have disclosed the US involvement in Saddam's crimes and therefore the Americans preferred to close the case earlier."<ref>{{cite news | url = http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-12/30/content_5550896.htm | title = Iran: Saddam's execution amounts to "victory of the Iraqis" | work = [[Xinhua News Agency|Xinhua]] |date= 2006-12-30}}</ref>
This RfC is a bit confusing. For one, the discussion over the Lost episodes is happening on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines]] and not the other Lost talk page. Also, on the Lost discussion we're mostly talking about the use of disambig titles ("Showtitle (Lost whatever)") when no disambig title is needed. However, the 3 "vote" options presented don't allow for someone to say if they prefer "(Show Name episode)" or "(Show Name)" ''without'' needless disambiguation. Can we change the wording on this and the options before people get too far into this so there's less confusion? Also, it'd be nice if we could transclude some of the comments from that Lost talk page to here, as I'd hate to bug everyone again for a ''second'' comment. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 20:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
:That's a good point, Ned. I wonder if we actually need to take two votes here: one to determine whether episodes should always have the parenthetical disambiguation suffix or should only include when necessary, and one to determine whether that suffix should be "(ShowName)" or "(ShowName episode)" or something else.
:Regarding the first point (whether to disambiguate always, or only when necessary): I would normally be quick to go with the universal standard, but the fact of the matter is that episode titles are actually pretty rarely used in day-to-day discussions. I mean, if I were to say to my co-worker, "Hey, did you see 'Static' last night?" he wouldn't know that I was referring to last night's episode of [[Cold Case]]. I agree that Wikipedia articles should be named with the simplest, clearest title possible, and that we should only add disambiguation when necessary. But "simplest and clearest" doesn't always mean "shortest." In this case, I think adding the disambiguation is actually simpler and clearer than not adding it.--[[User:TobyRush|TobyRush]] 20:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
::Not sure who added the previous comment, I'll dig through the history later and find it but I agree with your first point as I would most deffinately vote for either 2 or 3 before option one. And I do agree with Ned as well. The main reason I posted the discussion here was because it was spread across so many shows. I will through together a notice later tonight that we can throw up on talk pages to let people know that this discussion is here. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']] | </span></small> 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::A lot of films aren't recognizable in the mainstream, but I don't think they all need to be appended with "(film)." I think if the current guideline is sufficient; if ambiguous, they should be appended with the showname in parentheses, otherwise they should not. [[User:Shannernanner|<span style="font-family: Palatino"><font color="indigo">Shannernanner</font></span>]] 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I think using films is a bad analogy here as films are singular where as it's not uncommon for a tv series to have 100-200 episodes or more. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']] | </span></small> 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:I actually experienced this myself moments ago... Matthew referred to [[The New and Improved Carl Morrissey]] above and it wasn't until visiting the page that I realized it was even a television episode, let alone one from [[The 4400]]. And I was reading a comment ''about television episodes.'' Sure, a large part of that may be due to my own daftness... --[[User:TobyRush|TobyRush]] 20:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not real useful to have the same subject being discussed at multiple places. There's no way this "vote" can be considered binding unless people in the other discussions are notified as well. I only stumbled on this by looking at other people's contributions. That notwithstanding, can someone please explain this supposed watchlist benefit to number 2 above? Are there people that are watching pages but don't want to fix vandalism in them because they're not related to Lost?! Please tell me that's not the case. If an article is in your watchlist, you should look for vandalism in edits to that article, regardless of the article's subject - and certainly regardless of that article's naming convention! —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 22:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
In the [[United States]], [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] made a statement, "Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself."<ref name="president"/> Celebration in the United States occurred in at least one ___location in [[Dearborn, Michigan|Dearborn]], [[Michigan]], at the corner of Warren and Greenfield, a heavily [[Shia Islam|Shia]] Iraqi-American community.<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16400751/ | title = Iraqi Americans celebrate Saddam’s execution | work = [[Associated Press]] |date= 2006-12-30 | accessdate = 2006-12-30 }}</ref>
: (edit conflict) It's actually not a primary consideration, but for me, I do a ''lot'' of work on Wikipedia, and routinely have about 2,000 articles on my watchlist at any one time, even with constant pruning. If I have time, yes, it's nice to be able to go through and check the most recent change on every single article I'm watching. More often, however, I'm just on Wikipedia for a few minutes, so I like to focus on the ''Lost'' articles, since I'm very familiar with that subject matter right now. Also, to be honest, the changes to the ''Lost'' episode articles are more likely to need patrolling for vandalism or original research than many of the others on my list. However, I don't have every single episode title memorized, and many of the episode titles don't ''look'' like episode titles (like [[The Greater Good]] or [[Maternity Leave]]). So having the additional suffix makes them easier to spot in my watchlist. And again, it's not a major issue with me, but it is still something that's helpful, which is why I added it to the "Pro" section. :) --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
====Copycat hangings====
::Just FYI, you can get a watchlist for just Lost episodes if you bookmark this link: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Category%3ALost_episodes]. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 23:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
There were reports of [[Copycat effect|copycat]] deaths influenced by the media coverage. A 10-year-old boy in [[Webster, Texas|Webster]], [[Texas]], [[United States]] hanged himself to death in his bedroom. The mother stated that the boy had previously watched a news report about Saddam's execution and decided to hang himself as a form of experimentation. In [[Multan]], [[Pakistan]], a 9-year-old boy also died apparently copying the televised execution; his 10-year-old sister assisted with the hanging. A 15-year-old girl from [[Kolkata]], [[India]] was reported to have hanged herself after becoming extremely depressed by watching the execution.<ref>{{cite news| url = http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21014276-2,00.html | title = Video sparks copy-cat hangings | work = [[Reuters]] and [[Agence France-Presse|AFP]] | date= 2007-01-05 | accessdate = 2007-01-05}}</ref> Copycat hangings are blamed for the deaths of eight people worldwide.<ref>{{cite news| url = http://uk.news.yahoo.com/08012007/323/children-die-worldwide-seeing-saddam-hang.html | title = Children die worldwide after seeing Saddam hang | work = [[Yahoo!|Yahoo! UK/Ireland]] | date= 2007-01-08 | accessdate = 2007-01-13}}</ref>
::I have to agree with you on this point as well --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']] | </span></small> 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
===Non-governmental organizations===
Preemptive disambiguation has always been and continues to be a bad idea. Article titles should consist only of the ''titles'' of ''articles''. In some cases, this policy doesn't work because some things have the same title. In those cases, as a last resort, we disambiguate the title using a parenthetical disambiguation. Parenthetical disambiguations are ''bad thing'', to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. We should not be implementing policies that change article titles to generic information containers that contain titles and any other random grab-bag of information, like the name of the series it is a part of, or whatever. It's a muddy semantic mess that would only cause worse semantic muddying elsewhere on Wikipedia. Once we put "(Star Trek episode)" (or whatever) in the title of every Star Trek episode, why not put "(Star Trek character)" after every character or "(2005 novel)" after every novel written last year or "(person who graduated college)" in the title of every article about college graduates, and so on? Star Trek episodes are not special and there is no compelling reason why they should have special exemption to the general policy of only disambiguating when disambiguation is necessary. While it may provide a small benefit in remembering link names for those users who exclusively edit articles relating to Star Trek, for the rest of us, who are just as likely to link to a Star Trek episode as any other article, having a policy of preemptive disambiguation for Star Trek articles is just another dumb exception that has to be memorized and makes Wikipedia less consistent overall. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 23:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
*[[Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights]]: "All sections of Iraqi society, as well as the wider international community, have an interest in ensuring that a death sentence provided for in Iraqi law is only imposed following a trial and appeal process that is, and is legitimately seen as, fair, credible and impartial. That is especially so in a case as exceptional as this one."<ref name="Iraq response"/> – High Commissioner Louise Arbour
:I agree, well stated. [[User:Shannernanner|<span style="font-family: Palatino"><font color="indigo">Shannernanner</font></span>]] 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
*[[Human Rights Watch]]: "Saddam Hussein was responsible for massive [[human rights]] violations, but that can't justify giving him the death penalty, which is a cruel and inhuman punishment."<ref name="hrw">{{cite web| url = http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/12/30/iraq14950.htm| title = Iraq: Saddam Hussein Put to Death| accessdate = 2006-12-30|date= 2006-12-30| publisher = [[Human Rights Watch]]}}</ref> "History will judge the deeply flawed Dujail trial and this execution harshly."<ref name="Iraq response"/> – Director Richard Dicker
::Imo it has evolved into more then being just "disambig." <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/[[User:MatthewFenton|Fenton, Matthew]] [[User talk:MatthewFenton|Lexic Dark]] [[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|52278 Alpha 771]]</font></small> 23:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
*[[Amnesty International USA]]: "The rushed execution of Saddam Hussein is simply wrong. It signifies justice denied for countless victims who endured unspeakable suffering during his regime, and now have been denied their right to see justice served."<ref name="international comments"/><ref name="amnestyusa">{{cite web| url = http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGUSA20061229001| title = Iraq: Statement of Larry Cox, Executive Director, Amnesty International USA on the impending execution of Saddam Hussein| accessdate = 2006-12-30|date= 2006-12-29| publisher = [[Amnesty International USA]]}}</ref> – Executive Director Larry Cox
:I completely disagree with you in this case. Normally yes preemtive disambig would not be advisable (i.e. 2005 novel, film, etc) but in this case i think the pro's far out weigh the cons. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']] | </span></small> 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
*[[International Federation of Human Rights]]: "This death sentence will generate more violence and deepen the cycle of killing for revenge in Iraq. It is primarily a settling of old scores rather than any attempt at a just sentence; the whole process is an affront to the dignity and the rights of victims."<ref name="fidh">{{cite web| url = http://www.fidh.org/article.php3?id_article=3784 | title = Saddam Hussein's Trial: Statement of Sidiki Kaba, president of the FIDH | accessdate = 2006-12-30|date= 2006-11-05| publisher = [[FIDH]]}}</ref> – President Sidiki Kaba
==Criticism==
:::Sorry, are you saying that disambiguation isn't disambiguation?
[[Human Rights Watch]] issued a statement that the "execution follows a flawed trial and marks a significant step away from the rule of law in Iraq."<ref name="hrw"> </ref> [[Amnesty International]] issued a statement that it "opposed the death penalty in all circumstances but it was especially egregious when this ultimate punishment is imposed after an unfair trial."<ref name="ai">{{cite web| url = http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-281206-statement-eng| title = Amnesty International condemns Iraqi Appeal Court verdict against Saddam Hussein and co-accused| accessdate = 2006-12-30|date= 2006-12-30| publisher = [[Amnesty International]]}}</ref> Two days before the execution, the [[International Federation of Human Rights]] released a statement calling "upon Iraq's Head of State to ensure a moratorium on the death sentence pronounced against Saddam Hussein." The organization also said Saddam should be treated as a [[prisoner of war]] under the [[Geneva Conventions]].<ref>[http://www.fidh.org/article.php3?id_article=3925 "Iraq: No to death penalty ratification!"], ''[[International Federation of Human Rights]]'', [[December 27]], [[2006]]</ref> [[Juan Cole]] said that the execution might lead to more [[sectarian]] turmoil. "The trial and execution of Saddam were about revenge, not justice. Instead of promoting national reconciliation, this act of revenge helped Saddam portray himself one last time as a symbol of Sunni Arab resistance, and became one more incitement to sectarian warfare," he said.<ref>Juan Cole, "[http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/12/30/saddam/index.html Saddam: The death of a dictator]," ''Salon.com'' (30 December 2006).</ref>
Lawyers for Saddam called the trial "a flagrant violation of international law" and plan to continue "using all legal paths available locally and internationally until public opinion gets the truth about this political assassination."<ref>[http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_2050104,00.html Saddam a martyr - lawyers] December 30, 2006</ref> In a separate statement, Saddam's American defense lawyer called the execution "an unfortunate display of arrogant aggressor's injustice by the United States of America under the leadership of American President George W. Bush. It sets back achievements in international criminal law many decades and sends a clear message to people all over the world that the United States' aggression cannot be stopped by the law. It is truly a sad day for international justice and sad beginning to a new year."<ref>[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/12/saddam-lawyers-decry-political.php "Saddam lawyers decry 'political assassination' in statement"] [[December 30]], [[2006]]</ref>
:::I think that the summary doesn't quite do justice to the first option. The current guideline isn't "first come, first served"; it's "disambiguate only when necessary". Specifically, it's "disambiguate only when there would be confusion if you didn't." True, it's not readily apparent that [[The New and Improved Carl Morrissey]] is about an episode of ''The 4400''; but then, it's not readily apparent that [[The Man in the Brown Suit]] is an Agatha Christie mystery — until you click on the link. We don't title that page [[The Man in the Brown Suit (novel)]], because there's nothing else that would claim that title. Similarly, unless there's another article that could be titled [[The New and Improved Carl Morrissey]], we shouldn't title the article [[The New and Improved Carl Morrissey (The 4400 episode)]].
Since the release of the amateur video footage of the execution, several commentators have criticized the atmosphere of the hanging. [[John Simpson]] of [[BBC News]] stated that the execution "is shown to be an ugly, degrading business, which was more reminiscent of a public hanging in the 18th century than a considered act of 21st century official justice."<ref>{{cite news|url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6221751.stm |title=Saddam hanging taunts evoke ugly past|author=John Simpson|authorlink=|work=British Broadcasting Corporation|accessdate=2007-01-01|date=2006-12-31}}</ref> Toby Dodge, an expert on Iraq, of Queen Mary College, [[University of London]] stated that the showing of the execution on television "conforms to a brutal logic that Saddam Hussein used himself" and went further by saying that "this isn't even victor's justice, this is the tawdry work of an insecure government," particularly since Prime Minister [[Nouri al-Maliki]] forced through Saddam's execution just four days after the appeals court upheld his conviction.<ref>{{cite news|url = http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PAR151828.htm |title=Feature-Iraqis ponder lessons of history after Saddam hangs|author=Claudia Parsons|authorlink=|work=Reuters|accessdate=2007-01-01|date=2006-12-31}}</ref> ''[[The Times]]'' commented in its online edition that, in the moments immediately preceding the hanging, "the scene had begun to resemble a [[medieval]] execution or a wild hanging in [[Texas]]" amid repeated instances of taunts hurled at Saddam that drowned out the lonely voice of an unidentified person calling for calm in the face of the gravity of the situation.<ref>{{cite news|url = http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2526093,00.html |title=How one mobile phone made Saddam's hanging a very public execution|author=Ned Parker and Ali Hamdani|authorlink=|work=The Times of London Online Edition|accessdate=2007-01-01|date=2007-01-01}}</ref> Writing in ''[[The Hindu]]'' of India, [[Siddharth Varadarajan]] compared the filming and circulation of Saddam's execution video to the picture postcards of American lynchings of African-American men that were popular in the Deep South in the early years of the 20th century.<ref>{{cite news|url = http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2007/01/bringing-to-book-guilty-men-of-baghdad.html |title=Bringing to book the guilty men of Baghdad|author=Siddharth Varadarajan|authorlink=|work=The Hindu|accessdate=2007-02-16|date=2007-01-10}}</ref>. The ''[[New York Times]]'' described the execution as "a sectarian free-for-all that had the effect, on the video recordings, of making Mr. Hussein, a mass murderer, appear dignified and restrained, and his executioners, representing Shi'ites who were his principal victims, seem like bullying street thugs."<ref>{{cite news|url = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/world/middleeast/01iraq.html |title=U.S. Questioned Iraq on the Rush to Hang Hussein|author=John F. Burns and Marc Santora|authorlink=|work=New York Times|accessdate=2007-01-01|date=2007-01-01}}</ref> The Pakistani-born writer Tariq Ali denounced the proceedings, contrasting favourably the trials of Nazi criminals after World War II with the trial of Hussein, "Where Nuremberg was a more dignified application of victor's justice, Saddam's trial has, till now, been the crudest and most grotesque." <ref>{{cite news|url = http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/features/executionofsaddam.html |title=Saddam at the end of a rope|author=Tariq Ali|work=Seven Oaks Magazine|accessdate=2006-12-30}}</ref>
:::I'm also confused by the obsession that some editors have with "consistency". Why should we fetishize the names of articles? In any article related to the television series, an episode's name will be piped anyway. It's only in a category that people will see that some articles have the suffix and some do not. Do [[:Category:First Doctor serials]] and the other daughter categories of [[:Category:Doctor Who serials]] look less "professional" because the Doctor Who WikiProject follows standard Wikipedia practice? For that matter, does [[:Category:Agatha Christie novels]] look less "professional" because some articles have the (novel) suffix and some do not? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Again, well stated, I agree. [[User:Shannernanner|<span style="font-family: Palatino"><font color="indigo">Shannernanner</font></span>]] 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Following the leaking of a [[mobile phone]] footage of Saddam Hussein's execution, along with the detention on [[January 3]], [[2007]] of a guard under the Justice Ministry headed by a Sunni Iraqi minister [[Hashim Abderrahman al-Shibli]], suspicions have arisen that the ministry may have intended to inflame sectarian tensions.<ref>{{cite news|url =http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/03/saddam.execution/index.html |title=More arrests expected from Hussein execution video |author=[[CNN]] |date=2007-01-03 |accessdate=2007-01-03}}</ref> In an interview with ''[[La República]]'' on [[January 19]], [[2007]], [[Muqtada al-Sadr]] said that the people who were in the room during execution were "people paid to discredit him" and the purpose of the unofficial video was to "make Muqtadá look like the real enemy of the Sunnis."<ref>[http://justworldnews.org/archives/002346.html Moqtada's interview at La Repubblica, translated]</ref>
:::::The point I was trying to make above is that televisions episodes are exceptional in that the episode titles are not usually known by anyone except avid fans of the series. I agree that it would be silly to use [[The Man in the Brown Suit (novel)]], because that book is generally referred to, and thought of, as "''The Man in the Brown Suit''," and not "Christie's 1924 novel" or "The one she wrote after ''Murder on the Links.''" TV episodes, on the other hand, are only known to most people as "last night's ''Heroes'' episode" or "the ''E.R.'' fifth season finale." I have become a pretty avid fan of [[Jericho]], but I'd be hard pressed to give you the names of ''any'' of the episodes without looking at the episode list.
:::::Because the most official name for a television episode is also the least-known and least-used, I think an exception to the Wikipedia standard is justified. --[[User:TobyRush|TobyRush]] 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::By the way, Josiah, I agree with you in that there is nothing ''unprofessional'' about leaving off the disambiguation. I think it has more to do with ease-of-use than professionalism. --[[User:TobyRush|TobyRush]] 00:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
United States president [[George W. Bush]] mentioned on [[January 4]], [[2007]] that he wished that the execution "had gone on in a more dignified way."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/04/bush-saddam.html |title=Saddam's execution could have been more 'dignified': Bush |author=[[CBC News]] |date=2007-01-05 |accessdate=2007-01-06}}</ref>
::::::Fair enough; I'm just not convinced that there is a significant ease-of-use advantage in adding a suffix every time.
Bush later stated, in a [[January 16]], [[2007]] interview with U.S. television host [[Jim Lehrer]], that Saddam's execution "looked like it was kind of a revenge killing." Bush said he was "disappointed and felt like they fumbled the—particularly the Saddam Hussein—execution. It reinforced doubts in people's minds that the Maliki government and the unity government of Iraq is a serious government. [...] And it sent a mixed signal to the American people and the people around the world."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june07/bush_01-16.html |title=President Bush Defends Decision to Send Additional Troops to Iraq |author=[[PBS]] |date=2007-01-16 |accessdate=2007-01-17}} </ref>
::::::I also think that there are probably plenty of casual readers of Agatha Christie novels who might think of, say, ''[[Appointment with Death]]'' as "the one set in Jerusalem". I don't see that as an argument for moving that page to [[Appointment with Death (novel)]]. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 01:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
==See also==
Can you guys not pick two options? Seriously, it sets a bad example and it just attempt to have it "one way or the other". Should the two propositions just be merged? [[User:Izzy Dot|Izzy Dot]] ([[User talk:Izzy Dot|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Izzy|contribs]]) 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
* [[Saddam Hussein]]
* [[Trials of Saddam Hussein]]
* [[Capital punishment in Iraq]]
* [[2003 invasion of Iraq]]
* [[Iraq War]]
* [[Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti]] ([[Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti#Execution|execution]])
* [[Awad Hamed al-Bandar]] ([[Awad Hamed al-Bandar#Execution|execution]])
==References==
: (edit conflict) My own feeling is that it's a bad idea to pick one and only one way of doing with it, and then trying to force that one method on every episode article for every series. I think that for some series, using the suffixes is a good idea, and for others, the "only in cases of disambiguation" works well. But some others appear to disagree and want to insist that there should be only one method of handling it. Maybe we should add a "Flexibility" option to the above poll? Then we could a sentence like this to the guidelines: ''Certain shows such as [[Star Trek]] and [[Lost (TV series)|Lost]] may use different formats. When in doubt, it is best to make new episode articles consistent with the practice that is already in existence for that program.'' --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 00:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
<!--See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref> and </ref> tags and the tag below -->
<div class="references-2column"><references/></div>
Nohat, I am [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] regarding your additions to the pros and cons above, but many of them seem (to me, anyway) to be somewhat redundant and some are a little flippant. I invite you to consolidate your arguments a little to more accurately represent the different sides of this issue. Thank you! --[[User:TobyRush|TobyRush]] 00:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
==External links==
:Well, there are major advantages and disadvantages and minor advantages and disadvantages. Since many of the existing entries seemed to me to be extremely minor, it seemed reasonable to just make the lists as exhaustive as possible and let readers decide for themselves the significance each pro and con. As for whether any are ''redundant'', I don't think any of my additions are; they all occurred to me as distinct advantages or disadvantages, although the distinction in some cases is somewhat subtle. Perhaps some related but subtly distinct pros and cons could be combined into single bullet points, but aren't we splitting hairs enough? [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
<!-- DO NOT ADD ANY EXTRA LINKS UNLESS IT IS NEW FOOTAGE. ANY SPAM OF LINKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING A WEBSITE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED -->
*[http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/inresaddam122906app.html (FindLaw) Application for Stay of Execution] — Filed in U.S. Federal Court on [[December 29]], [[2006]].
:My view (as someone who is very peripheral to this discussion, on which I don't have immensely strong feelings) is that people are using the "Pro" and "Con" statements above to implicitly argue for their bias, rather than present a neutral laying out of various approaches. The statements seem overwhelmingly slanted towards Option 1, in other words. I find this objectionable as a debating style, frankly, and it makes me wonder why people feel they need to stack the deck in this manner. -- [[User:PKtm|PKtm]] 00:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
<!-- These video links are not to be deleted, as per consensus on talk page -->
::Fine, I removed everything but the options. Now, can get back to what's importante?
*Video of execution:
**[http://today.reuters.com/tv/videoChannel.aspx?storyid=a12e30546019929f3625ae1d8bb4eb8ae3c00394 Before Execution] — (Reuters) video footage moments before the execution.
**[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7532034279766935521 Full Execution] — Camera phone footage of hanging, including audio and footage of death. ([http://www.box.net/public/static/k7vrrx91is.wmv Non-streaming link])
*[http://www.liveleak.com/saddam2.html Interviews with Iraqi People] — (Al Jazeera) video footage of Iraqi people's reaction after Saddam's execution.
::Elonka, no. Whatever the ultimate fallout is, a clear policy needs to be set, no exceptions. And I was talking about votes. People voting for guidelines two and three, specifically. We might as well merge them for now if people are just going to vote for both [[User:Izzy Dot|Izzy Dot]] ([[User talk:Izzy Dot|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Izzy Dot|contribs]]) 00:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I would be OK with merging options 2 and 3 for now and then doing a sperate poll if that option prevails. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']] | </span></small> 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[[Category:Saddam Hussein|Execution of Saddam Hussein]]
:::I think the removal may have been a bit hasty. There were some valid points on both sides that people should take into consideration. Please consider restoring the information, perhaps putting it in a slightly different context. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 00:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[[Category:2006 in Iraq]]
[[Category:Deaths by person|Saddam Hussein]]
[[Category:People executed by hanging|Saddam Hussein]]
[[Category:People executed by Iraq|Saddam Hussein]]
[[ar:إعدام صدام حسين]]
::I rephrased the characterization of the existing policy from "first come first served" to "disambiguate only when necessary". I think that's a more accurate description. Whether the pros and cons are kept or not, I hope this can be retained. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 00:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[[dv:ސައްދާމް ހުސެއިން ދަންޖެއްސުން]]
:::Not to start anything but alot of the pros/cons that were added were just restating [[WP:NC]] and [[WP:D]] --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']] | </span></small> 00:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[[es:Ejecución de Saddam Hussein]]
[[fa:اعدام صدام حسین]]
Also, I think there are two arguments here that should be discussed separately:
[[hu:Szaddám Huszein kivégzése]]
[[pl:Egzekucja Saddama Husajna]]
# Should article titles for television episodes use parenthetical disambiguations in all cases, or only when the article title is ambiguous?
# When television article titles use parenthetical disambiguations (that is, regardless of which option is picked for choice 1), should the format of the parenthetical disambiguation be (SeriesName) or (SeriesName episode)?
The two questions are completely orthogonal, and the current format of the poll conflates them. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
: For now, I think we should stick with the poll as it's structured, rather than making quick course changes. I see a lot of commentary here from people (including myself) who have the luxury of being able to check Wikipedia multiple times per day. But as I'm sure we all know, many Wikipedia editors who might like to offer an opinion, haven't even seen the poll yet. So I recommend letting it run for a few days, and give everyone a chance to weigh in. Meanwhile, we can also discuss proper wording for another poll, if one becomes necessary. Remember, [[WP:VIE|Voting is Evil]]. We're not here for a "majority rules" option, we're here to try and have a good faith discussion, and see if we can find a consensus. For example, along with the "do it or don't do it" options, I still think it's worthwhile to discuss the "It depends" option, to allow flexibility in the titling systems for different television programs. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 01:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the poll format a bit so people can state a preference for disabig titles '''and''' indicate support or oppose for disabig only when necessary. Those who wish to oppose the latter will need to re-sign under the new section. Sorry for the late change, but I did sort of suggest this early on (and then had to go to work). -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 02:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this discussion could benefit from the [[KISS principle]]. Adding disambiguation when unnecessary just complicates things. If "Title" is redirecting to "Title (disambiguation)" the page always gets moved. Any argument that a particular type of article is an exception puts too much emphasis on trivia, which we also like to avoid. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 03:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the stupid votes for multiple policies and "opposition". Let's be clear: you cannot vote for two things, period. One or the other. By voting for one thing, you're voting against the other. Pick an option and stick with it. Double votes for dabbing and no dabing have been removed. If the voters really care, they can re-add '''ONE''' vote to '''ONE''' choice and no more. Honestly.... [[User:Izzy Dot|Izzy Dot]] ([[User talk:Izzy Dot|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Izzy Dot|contribs]]) 07:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:I've reverted your edits. You clearly misunderstand the situation. There are two '''different''' things being polled here. If you took the time to read the discussion you would see that. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 08:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
====A question====
Just a quick question for those who are supporting sticking with the current policy. Are you voting that way simply because it's the current policy? Not to be rude I just haven't seen anyone give a good and valid reason as to why they prefer that. Mostly what I've seen from your group is "Thats the policy why change it?" I'm really curious to know. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']] | Status:{{User:Argash/status}}</span></small> 09:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines]] has a lot of that discussion. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 09:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know what you mean; see Josiah Rowe and Nohat's reasonings, for example. [[User:Shannernanner|<span style="font-family: Palatino"><font color="indigo">Shannernanner</font></span>]] 09:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::Other than saying they dont want to change the current practice the only thing I've seen them ask is do the categories look less professional because some have the suffix and some don't. I would answer yes they do but that isn't the point. the point that I (and I think most of the others) am trying to make is that the suffix adds much needed context to the article title. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']]</span></small> 10:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Then I don't believe you've read them; here are the diffs ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=84720856&oldid=84718782 diff 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=84729665&oldid=84729133 diff 2]). [[User:Shannernanner|<span style="font-family: Palatino"><font color="indigo">Shannernanner</font></span>]] 10:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::I read them, and all they seem to say (as far as I can tell) is regurgitate the existing policy. The only unique statement I see was this '''I'm also confused by the obsession that some editors have with "consistency". Why should we fetishize the names of articles? In any article related to the television series, an episode's name will be piped anyway.''' To which I would say we aren't obsessed, we just want consistency across large swaths of articles. The novel argument or character argument just doesn't wash with me. Where you might have a handful of characters in a series or novels in a trilogy or series, a TV show might have 100-200 episodes through out its run (and don't get me started on Dr. Who). I guess what I'm asking is why do you think it's so wrong to preemptively tag these large chunks of articles? Why do you think it's so wrong to be consistent across these large number of articles? --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']]</span></small> 11:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::It's wrong because it's pointless and has no end. The most prominent reason on the disambiguate-always side seems to be that Lost episode articles will be easier to find in Elonka's 2,000-item watchlist! By that logic, I should tag [[Steve Trachsel]] and [[José Reyes]] with (New York Mets player) because I'm a New York Mets fan. What a terrible reason. The name of episode articles is pretty trivial anyway since no one knows episodes by name - they'll only be able to find the episodes by scanning through lists with season numbers and summaries - and then the piped links will make the inconsistency invisible anyway. I'm still waiting for a decent reason for pre-emptive disambiguation in any case, let alone among Lost episode articles. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 12:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:I prefer the current guideline because it's a good guideline. I haven't seen too many say they like the current convention ''solely'' because it's the current guideline so I don't know why you say that. I disagree that there's some level of "professionalism" gained by adding a word in parentheses to only this group of articles. Among other things, this opens the door to add (whatever) to every article title. The same reasoning applies almost anywhere - I'll add (baseball player) to every baseball bio, and (nation) to every nation article and (plant species) to every plant species article. What's the point to any of those? It doesn't make any of them look more "professional" and only makes life (very slightly) easier for editors, not readers. I like the term "fetishism" that someone is using here to describe making the article names fit the same pattern because that seems to be the only motivator here. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Living_people&from=Smith - should we add some common disambiguator to all of the living Smith articles just because all of the article titles on that screen don't match? Of course not. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 11:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::If people are seeing the most prominent reason to "disambiguate" (I'll explain the quotes in a minute) as being the improvement of Elonka's formidable watchlist, then I think at least one argument is being overlooked. In my mind, the most prominent reason to do it is because '''episode titles alone are not complete or dependable identifiers of television episodes.''' Some TV series ([[The Simpsons]], [[Friends]]) don't even display the titles as part of the episode at all. If you read a novel where each chapter was marked with only a number ("Chapter 1," "Chapter 2," and so on), would it be intuitive to have research on those chapters listed under the names that the author might have used but didn't actually include in the book?
::That being said, I wonder if part of the issue here is semantics: the proposal is to somehow put the series name in a parenthesis after the episode title, something that is otherwise used in Wikipedia to indicate disambiguation. But I'm not sure that disambiguation is people are looking for here (which is why I put it in quotes above). [[The Jericho episode "The Four Horsemen"]] seems to better illustrate what ''I'm'' thinking of, but of course that's hopelessly unwieldly for an article name. Is there better way to identify episodes as being "chapters in a series" than by using the system normally used for disambiguation? --[[User:TobyRush|TobyRush]] 15:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Toby, this is a noteworthy point, and it leads to the question of whether it is necessary to provide this context in the name of an article. Any link to a specific episode of a television series should provide enough context for a reader to know that they're going to an article about an episode. The job of an article title ''isn't'' to provide context for those who don't know what the subject is — the article does that. If I came upon a contextless link to, say [[Adios Butler]] (a page I found by hitting "random article" a few times), I would have no idea what that was. But if I see a link to Adios Butler in a list of pacing horses on [[Harness racing]], then I'll know that Adios Butler is a horse. My ignorance of the subject of horse racing is not a justification for renaming that article [[Adios Butler (horse)]].
::::The mere fact that most people who watch television don't take note of episodes' names does not mean that Wikipedia needs to provide that context in an article's title. I'd expect that if someone wanted to find an article on a particular episode of ''Lost'', they'd probably go first to [[Lost]], thence to [[Lost (TV series)]], thence to [[List of Lost episodes]], where they'll find the episode they're interested in. At no point in that process does it matter whether the episode is titled [[Further Instructions]] or [[Further Instructions (Lost)]]. So the fact that most television viewers don't know episode names is really irrelevant to the question of Wikipedia's naming conventions. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::The same point still holds though. If someone mentions Fred Clarke, not too many people will know who that is. Is that a reason to name his article, "Fred Clarke, Hall of Fame Major League baseball player"? I don't think so. The only people that are likely to ever find the Jericho episode article you mention are people who are looking for Jericho episode articles - whether it's disambiguated or not. If I click on The Four Horseman and it turns out to be a Jericho episode article, so what? I'll figure it out after the first sentence (assuming it follows [[WP:MOS]], [[WP:LS]] and [[WP:GTL]] as it should). —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::: If we, as Wikipedians, decide that individual television episodes are notable enough to have their own articles, then they are ''prima facie'' notable enough to stand alone on their titles. TV episode titles are not qualitatively more obscure and in need of contextualization than any other group of relatively obscure things, like [[:Category:Hindu gods|Hindu gods]], [[:Category:Negro League baseball players|Negro League baseball players]], or [[:Category:Villain groups|villain groups]]. The things in those groups don't need preemptive disambiguation, and neither do TV episodes. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 18:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Excellent point, Nohat. --[[User:TobyRush|TobyRush]] 18:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Nohat and Wknight94 have explained the "keep it as is" position fairly well, but just for the record I'll add my reasons. I ''do'' support the existing policy, because it's a good policy. An article should have the shortest name that identifies its subject clearly, and without ambiguity. As TobyRush points out, parenthetical suffixes on Wikipedia exist to resolve ambiguity between titles, not to provide context for an article's subject. The ''article'' does that, ideally in its first line.
I don't think that it's "wrong" to be consistent — I just don't think that ''context-providing'' consistency is a value that needs to be taken into account in article naming. I do feel that the example of [[:Category:Agatha Christie novels|Agatha Christie novels]] is relevant — only the devotees of a particular author will recognize the titles of all of her works. Many of them are works in a series, not unlike the episodes of a television series. It's ''exactly'' parallel to the television example: if we must label [[The Unquiet Dead]] as [[The Unquiet Dead (Doctor Who episode)]], then by the same reasoning we should label [[Five Little Pigs]] as [[Five Little Pigs (Hercule Poirot novel)]]. I really don't see the difference. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 19:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:To be fair, though, I don't think it's ''exactly'' parallel; the ''most commonly used identifier'' for a novel is more often its title, whereas the ''most commonly used identifier'' for a television episode is something along the lines of "that one episode of [series name] where...". If we're looking for something analogous to "episode X of series Y", I think it's somewhere inbetween "novel X of author Y" and "chapter X of novel Y." It seems to me that someone who reads Agatha Christie novels, whether a "devotee" or simply a fan of fiction in general, is going to know the books by their names. But my brother-in-law, who can quote entire episodes of [[The Simpsons]] verbatim, can't tell you the episode names for any of them.
:However, finding an exact analogy is going to be impossible because it's going to vary wildly within any category, television episodes included. My point is that television episodes represent a unique situation, and that as such it's worth exploring whether or not they warrant an exception to the general rule. In that regard, though, your point (the first line should provide the necessary context) and Nohat's point (if an episode has its own article, it's independent enough to be identified by the episode title) are absolutely correct. --[[User:TobyRush|TobyRush]] 19:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I also support the existing policy, not because it's the one that exists, but because it is a good, well thought out, policy. I mentioned the [[KISS principle]] above as to why the existing policy is good. Not using disambiguation is always the simplest thing to do, it just isn't always possible because of ambiguity. When ambiguity complicates things anyway, using a longer title is actually useful, but the longer title should still be the simplest one possible. The first time I read the policy I thought, "Well, that makes sense." which is why I used it when naming articles from [[Xiaolin Showdown]]. Those articles may not be very good yet, but they all have the simplest name they can, and I've had no trouble keeping track of them in my watchlist even when they don't say (Xiaolin Showdown) after them. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 19:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
: My position in support of suffixes is this:
:*In the case of ''Lost'', the majority of the episodes already have the suffix, since the show creators like to re-use specific phrases, so it makes sense to add suffixes to the minority of episodes that don't have it, in order to keep a consistent look and feel.
:*By the nature of the show, the episode articles are highly interlinked, and we frequently have to link to multiple different episodes within each article, so it makes sense to use a consistent titling scheme for ease of editing, rather than constantly having to check to see which episode has the suffix, and which one doesn't.
:*Ease of navigation for the average reader: If they are stepping through articles with the navigation box, I think it looks odd to see that most of the episodes ''do'' use the suffix, but some do not. Most of our casual readers are going to be oblivious to the subtleties of disambiguation, so I don't think it's an issue for them. The method of only adding suffixes to episode titles that absolutely need it for disambiguation, ends up looking "random" to most people, resulting in a look that is unprofessional and confusing.
:* Another advantage to including suffixes, is the watchlist issue, though I will repeat again that this is ''not'' my primary motivation, it's just an added benefit, to quickly be able to identify which items in my watchlist are ''Lost'' episodes.
:* With consistent suffixes, the category listing looks cleaner, rather than being an apparent hodgepodge of episodes with and without suffixes, which frankly looks like an error: [[:Category:Lost episodes]].
:And lastly, I continue to be bewildered as to why people feel it's so necessary to make a strong stand on this "no suffix" point. I honestly don't see that there would be any major negative impact on Wikipedia by allowing all of the episodes of a particular television show, such as ''Lost'', to use a consistent titling system. The ''Star Trek'' episodes in [[:Category:Star Trek episodes]] have been using consistent suffixes in a stable manner for a long time, and I haven't seen any indication that this causes mass confusion. To my mind, the ''Star Trek'' episode articles and related categories look clean, consistent, and professional. Further, if someone were to go through and attack the ''Star Trek'' system by insisting on moving episodes to different non-suffix titles simply because of an obsessive need to "enforce" a guideline that isn't even policy, I would see that as disruptive, and in violation of [[WP:POINT]]. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 21:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::You're still simply calling the current guideline obsessive while using arguments for your viewpoint which frankly sound obsessive. You're saying you want consistency across Lost episode titles while simultaneously saying consistency across different TV episode conventions (Lost vs. Simpsons, etc.) is not important. Your first, third and fifth points above are almost identical - going towards some sort of lack of professionalism which I just can't buy at all (I can't see how any reader would care that some of the articles have (Lost episode) after them and some don't). Your second point goes just as much for most other subjects (I know I'm repeating myself but do you think I write an article about a baseball player without ever referencing any of his teammates or opponents? Should I put (baseball player) on the end of each one just in case two of them are named Smith and Jones and would need disambiguation?). The watchlist issue can be solved easily - prune your watchlist if you only want to maintain certain articles. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::BTW, I actually find disambiguated titles helpful - and using them arbitrarily would completely diffuse that helpfulness. Disambiguated titles are an instant indicator that there are other articles and subjects which are similar and lets me - as a reader - simply remove the (whatever) part of the title and quickly see what other articles are named similarly. In the case of Lost episodes, it would be a quick way to find what the episode name is referring to. When I run across an instance where the article without the (whatever) just redirects back to the article ''with'' (whatever), that's obnoxious to me! For an inexperienced user who isn't familiar with redirects, that could send them into a very frustrating circular loop. "I remove the (whatever) and I just keep coming to the article with the (whatever)!" Talk about unprofessional... it almost looks like a bug in the system. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 22:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Exactly, Wiki-Knight, and that's one of my points, frankly. Still, I fear this may not be getting either side very far. I mean, the excessive dabbers can argue for their perceived pros and we can denounce their practices with our perceived cons, but is any side right? Is either side actually acknowledging or diffusing the others' argument? I'm just beginning to wonder if discussion isn't pointless...[[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::Well it's certainly getting repetitive anyway. To me, it would take a very convincing argument to overturn such a longstanding guideline and I'm not hearing anything anywhere near convincing. I can't shake the feeling that this exact argument went on three or four years ago and is how the guideline came to be in the first place - and it will probably be repeated again every so often. Can't wait... :( —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Should one of the disambiguation examples be adopted, there is also the problem of series which are named identically but came out at different times. I can think of only one series this applies to, and that is Battlestar Galactica. Currently, for example, we have [[Take the Celestra (Battlestar Galactica)]] and [[Act of Contrition (Battlestar Galactica)]], both using the pre-emptive disambiguation naming convention, except that the former is from the original 1978 series and the latter from the 2004 remake. Only [[The Hand of God (Battlestar Galactica)]] is disambiguated any further because that episode title occurs in both versions. My own personal suggestion, beyond eliminating pre-emptive disambiguation, is for the above examples to become, respectively, [[Take the Celestra (Battlestar Galactica 1978)]] and [[Act of Contrition (Battlestar Galactica 2004)]]. Note that I am not a big fan of making double parenthethis in article names, which is why I did not put them around the years, but if this is an issue, perhaps a hyphen instead? --[[User:BlueSquadronRaven|<font color="blue">'''BlueSquadron'''</font><font color="black">'''Raven'''</font>]] 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
:Either way there's going to be ambiguity. I'd recommend listing all ambiguous titles with the year of the series for clarity. On the unlikely chance that excessive dabbing wins, add the years to them all. [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 00:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:Unless the excessive dabbing wins the year should only be added when necessary, because an episodes in both had the same title. The disambiguation is only for Wikipedia to have separate file names, it's not for people to search for a particular topic, but separate to similar topics from each other. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 00:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::This is another very nice example of why ''not'' to disambiguate unless necessary. When you do, you're just categorizing - and Wikipedia already has categorizing functionality. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 00:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I see the majory argument for using disambiguation is consistency. On the same principal, having all TV series using the same title format (either disambiguation or no disambiguation) is also very important in terms of consistency. Which means doing massive numbers of moves one way or the other. May as well be no disambiguation because it seems like most TV series do not have the disambiguation.
Also, can someone change the poll questions around? The way they're formatting now is confusing. The "opposse" sections are not needed. A vote for support in one of the three options shows opposse to the other two. Right now, there're people voting support for more than one option. And some people voting oppose on the two options they don't support, and some people not.
Have either just three options and people show support for one of the three. Or have two questions, the first addressing whether we need disambiguation. And the second for what type of disambiguation to use (for people who are pro-disambiguation). --[[User talk:Yaksha|<font color="#330066"><b>`/aksha</b></font>]] 05:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
===Poll changes===
I'm not sure who changed/refactored the poll questions, but I now find that I have my name under an item that I do not wish to vote for. "disambiguate only when necesary, and then disambiguate with ''(SeriesName episode)''" is NOT the same as "disambiguate all with ''(SeriesName episode)''". Of course there have been so many edits and changes to the page since then, I don't want to attempt to change them back and risk doing the same thing to someone else. All I can suggest is everyone CHECK their votes! -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 02:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:Elonka seems to have been the one to change it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=84944796&oldid=84944088]. I thought it was clear that we were discussion two separate issues, to disambig only when necessary, and what disambig title to use. I too found myself under as section that said "always add" which is '''NOT''' what I voted for. I've changed the sections back and removed the "oppose" sections because they're redundant to the "support" section of "Disambig only when necessary".
:Now I know that I did make a change to the poll, but that was after some discussion and the change didn't change the meaning to people's votes. At this point we know what people support, but some who are opposed might have to re-sign under the "oppose" of the first part. This is different than actually changing what a person supports.
:Are we clear on this are do we have to start over? I'm ''really'' hoping that this is clear now and we can just keep moving forward with collecting information, but if anyone feels strongly enough then we should restart the whole thing. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 05:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'm afraid that I may have added to the confusion in an earlier attempt to clarify things. I thought that the three options were meant to be "disambiguate only as needed", "always add (seriesname)" and "always add (seriesname episode)", and tried to clarify the titles accordingly. I apologize if that was an error. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 06:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:::It's definitely '''not''' simple, but here's how I think the poll is supposed to work as it is/was—depending on the edits made after/during this post—at 08:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC): the first part "disambiguate only when necessary" contains support and oppose votes. The "Oppose" stands for the "always disambiguate" votes. Right now, the "oppose" side is not fully represented as the system used to be a list of three separate policies, not two separate debates.
:::Voting for either "<series>" or "<series> ep" does '''not''' mean you're voting to disambiguate always. It's only a vote for which of the two options to use, even if "disambiguate only whe necessary" wins.
:::Currently, "dab when necessary" and "<series> ep" are both winning. Should this stay that way, the final result will be to follow the general pre-existing policy and '''always''' identify an article as being an "episode" of a series. [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 08:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I went ahead and added clarifiers to the poll itself. I tried to make my descriptions as neutral as possible, but if bias has slipped in, I call on others to fix it. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 08:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
====I'm confused====
I'm confused now. Have you changed the poll to where if (like me) you favor preemptive dabing I have to ''oppose'' the first option and ''support'' the second option(which ever one I prefer)? If thats the case I think we need to start the voting over and re-inform people, as I'm sure there are lots of people who came in here, made their choice and left nary to return again. Essentially scewing the vote. To be honest I think the poll was started prematurely anyway before the options were fully discussed. --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']]</span></small> 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:I have changed the format very slightly and clarified the headers to try to reduce this confusion. I don't want cause trouble, though, so someone please feel free to revert these changes if you think it's out of line. Once we determine an acceptible format for the poll (I agree, Argash, maybe we started the poll a little soon), I volunteer to help send messages to previous voters, asking them to return and confirm that their opinions are accurately recorded. --[[User:TobyRush|TobyRush]] 17:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::I think it would have been good to clarify a format for the poll and stuck with it, instead of changing it so many times, muddling the consistency of the votes. I believe several of the votes for the disambig appendages are meant as oppose votes for the first option, per the original poll format; it ''would'' be good if the current voters could be notified of the new format. And if the format could stay static now. [[User:Shannernanner|<span style="font-family: Palatino"><font color="indigo">Shannernanner</font></span>]] 17:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:::The last revision before the poll was changed is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28television%29&oldid=84751404]. Here is a list of everyone who had voted before the poll was changed: [[User:Izzy Dot|Izzy Dot]], [[User:Shannernanner|Shannernanner]], [[User:wknight94|wknight94]], [[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]], [[User:Nohat|Nohat]], [[User:Khaosworks|Khaosworks]], [[User:Thedemonhog|Thedemonhog]], [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]], [[User:Argash|Argash]], [[User:Elonka|Elonka]], [[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]], [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]], [[User:Marky1981|Marky1981]], [[User:EEMeltonIV|EEMeltonIV]], [[User:Mnemeson|Mnemeson]], [[User:Opark 77|Opark 77]]. They should all be notified on their talk pages that the poll has changed slightly and that they should double check their vote to make sure it corresponds to their actual preferences. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::::For whatever reason this didn't occur to me before, but I think that the previous voters who only voted support on the current "first poll" should be notified that they can also vote on the second items (which disambig to use "only when necessary"). [[User:Shannernanner|<span style="font-family: Palatino"><font color="indigo">Shannernanner</font></span>]] 19:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Speaking as someone in the list above, count me as an "I don't care" to the second question. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 19:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::: I'm not sure that the poll can even be salvaged at this point, it's been changed so much. I have reworded things to indicate the way that I ''thought'' was our intention at the beginning of the poll. In the meantime, I think that it's important that we continue talking about this, as this matter is obviously not going to be solved by polling alone. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 20:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Your rewording has now caused people's ideas to be invalidated from after the change. There are actually two things that need to be discussed. I still consider the word episode superfluous when the disambiguation is necessary, unless there is further conflict, and I should be able to voice that opinion as well as not adding superfluous disambiguation in the first place. I am very much against using article titles in the way that categories are intended to work. Marking an article as an episode of a particular series is a job for categories, not the titles. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::The poll has actually only changed once, and other poll changes have been reverted. After I had made the first change I noted that people who wanted to oppose "disambig when necessary" would need to re-sign under the new section, but all existing votes would not change their support meaning. The only thing that would be lost is how many people directly oppose "disambig when necessary", so that would be the only data we would have to "recover". The other (now reverted) changes, on the other hand, change much more than that and really make a mess of everything. As long as we are able to contact everyone who wishes to be counted as opposing "disambig when necessary" then all other data will be true. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 21:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::The second polling option looks like it should be about what disambiguation method should be used, but then the discription says that I would be supporting that some tv series should be an exception to the disambiguate only when necessary. I would like to support disambiguation by (NameofSeries) when possible and (NameofSeries episode) only to avoid further confusion. I just want to be sure that that is the idea I'm getting across when I put my name on something. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 22:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::What was done subsequent to my previous comment was exactly what I was talking about; the polling format should stay static, as it invalidates users' votes and makes it very difficult to draw any legitimate conclusion from the poll. The previous format — prior to the last "reversion" — was a good one, which seemed to be understood and followed, as far as I can tell. I agree with Jay32183's comments as well. [[User:Shannernanner|<span style="font-family: Palatino"><font color="indigo">Shannernanner</font></span>]] 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::: First: They're not votes. This is not a vote. This is what's called a poll. See [[Wikipedia:Straw polls]]. Second: The polling format has most definitely not stayed static. Here's what it looked like at the beginning, when we listed the various options, along with pro's and con's: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=84685901&oldid=84685738#RfC_Episode_Article_Naming_conventions] , but at this point, I think it's pretty well FUBAR. One possible way to handle it now, is that we close the poll, and proceed with discussion about the core issue (whether or not there can be flexibility in how television episodes are named) to see if we can find a meeting of the minds. We can also discuss a new set of poll questions that we all agree with ahead of time, rather than constantly changing them on the fly as has been going on. I am still willing to continue to discuss this issue in good faith, to try and find a consensus solution. I think that there's an important point in [[Wikipedia:Guideline]] which states, "''Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.''" Which is what my own position has been, is that the ''Star Trek'' episodes have been a clear and stable exception to [[WP:DAB]] rules, and that it makes sense to make an exception for the ''Lost'' articles as well, especially since the majority of people at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost]] already agreed on how episode titles were to be handled. Note that I'm not saying that the method which ''Lost'' uses should be enforced on ''all'' television programs -- it makes sense to me to allow the editors that are most involved with a set of articles, to figure out the best way of handling those articles. I don't think anyone is here because they want to damage Wikipedia. Please, we need to assume [[WP:AGF|good faith]] on the part of everyone involved. Can we find a way to discuss this issue, that doesn't involve a black and white polarized "Right and wrong" debate? Is there no room for compromise? --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 00:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::If we're talking about guidelines as ''descriptive'' of what actually happens on Wikipedia, rather than being ''prescriptive'' of what we think should happen, then "letting the group of editors who work on articles for each television series" is the existing guideline. The ''Star Trek'' editors decided a while back to put parenthetical suffixes on all episode articles. The ''Doctor Who'' editors, by contrast, decided to follow the general Wikipedia guideline, and disambiguate only when necessary. If we can't reach a new consensus on this page, then [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)]] should be amended to describe what the ''actual'' practice is.
:::::::::::However, I don't think that we've reached that point yet. In fact, I think that we may be able to reach a consensus to support the guideline as it currently stands — that is, to follow general Wikipedia guidelines, and disambiguate only when necessary. What I'd like to hear is whether there is any way to follow the existing guidelines and still address the concerns of those who'd rather have articles in a given category look "consistent". We can keep "varying by series" as a fall-back option, if consensus proves impossible, but let's try to see if there's room for compromise short of that. OK? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::I referred to it as a poll; your reply comes off as rather confrontational. I was not saying that the poll had stayed static, but requesting that it stay static rather than constantly changing as it had been. [[User:Shannernanner|<span style="font-family: Palatino"><font color="indigo">Shannernanner</font></span>]] 00:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to Elonka's last comment in this section: You're right, it's a poll, not a vote. With that in mind, we are just collecting information from this poll. With the current format, changed as it is, we can still say there is reasonable credibility for the data collected. We won't be ending this poll right away, and that will give all editors enough time to re-list an oppose "motion" under the oppose section for "disambig only when necessary". Since it's not a vote, and we're just collecting information, I don't really see the need to restart the poll (but still let it be open for at least a few more days, if not a week or so).
Second, the claim that the disambig titles were apart of the Lost episode mediation has been '''really''' bugging me. It's completely false. [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes]], [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes]], and then the message that the mediator posted about the outcome to the top of [[Talk:List of Lost episodes]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_Lost_episodes&diff=78242900&oldid=78043784 here].
Third, yes, guidelines should be treated with common sense, and exceptions should be made where reasonable. We all agree on that. However, what many of us are saying is that you are not presenting a reasonable exception, or even one that could be considered common sense. Flexibility can be a good thing, but without a good reason it becomes a problem. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 03:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
===This is not a vote===
I am actually amazed by how many people involved in this discussion, who think they know disambiguation rules backwards and forwards, are completely oblivious to how wrongheaded the idea of "voting" is on Wikipedia. ''This is not a vote''. This is a ''discussion''. This is ''not'' a "majority rules" situation. This is not a case of trying to find a "winner" or a "loser". The poll serves only to get a rough idea of where people stand on a complex issue. What it is showing me, is that we do not have a clear consensus, and that we need to keep talking about this, in good faith. I encourage everyone to eliminate the words "vote", "policy", "winning" and "losing" from their vocabulary, as these words are not helpful. Please instead ''very carefully'' read [[Wikipedia:Consensus]], [[Wikipedia:Guideline]] (where it specifically talks about how "voting" on guidelines is a common error), and [[WP:VIE]]. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 20:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:This is the typical mantra of someone whose idea is not gaining much support. How much longer do you propose this discussion should continue? And how many more times after this? Can we please draw the line somewhere? This is the 3rd page and like the 8th or 9th section I've posted a message regarding the same subject. Attrition, attrition, attrition. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 20:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::My thoughts exactly. I think it's very clear at this point the consensus is to disambig only when necessary. We can keep going and keep discussing, we can even restart the poll, I won't object to such things, but.. yeah.. we really don't need to. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I'll object to restarting the poll. Vehemently. I'm trying to [[WP:AGF]] here but I'm sensing a deliberate stalling tactic being employed. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 21:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
:I followed Elonka's suggestion, and re-read [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] with this discussion in mind. I was struck by this sentence:
::''However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus.''
:I don't think that we're there yet, but I do think that we're ''heading'' towards a consensus that ''as a general rule'', television episode article names should follow the same disambiguation guidelines as other article names. The question is whether there is a way to keep this as a general guideline, while still acknowledging the concerns of those who feel that "consistency" is an important value in article naming. That's how we'll turn this into a genuine consensus. Anyone got any ideas? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 00:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Thanks Josiah, I agree with you that the ''general'' guideline is a good one, but it should allow flexibility for those cases where it's leading to something inconsistent. The wording that I recommended adding to the Naming conventions page under "Episodes" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=84141191&oldid=84129832] would result in a paragraph that says, "''Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g. [[Bart the Genius]], but [[The Sting (Futurama)]]. Certain shows such as [[:Category:Star Trek episodes|''Star Trek'']] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines|''Lost'']] may use different formats. When in doubt, it is best to make new episode articles consistent with the practice that is already in existence for that program.''" How does that sound? --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:::We may end up there, but I'd still like us to try for a more — irony of ironies — ''consistent'' approach. A guideline that says "certain shows may use different formats" weakens itself, and I'd rather we had a guideline that could actually, y'know, ''guide''. That said, if we can't come to a stronger consensus, what you've proposed works as a ''descriptive'' guideline of what actually happens on Wikipedia, and I'd be OK with it as a fall-back position. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 00:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Just to chime in - again - I don't think anyone here to simply reaffirm the current guideline. They're here to decide whether to apply the current guideline to the Lost episode articles. Let's please not suddenly say, "Oh well, I guess the guideline will stay the way it is - okay, so let's see if anyone wants an exception for Lost". They don't. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 00:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it all seems pretty okay to me. I've made comments to those whose votes may been misinterpreted in hopes that they'll return to correct any perceived mistake. [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 22:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
===My suggestion===
Please forgive me but I have not read the 66 KB discussion thus far. I would suggest that disambiguation be done as necessary but "Title (series episode)" be created as a redirect regardless. My reason is simple: when writing episode lists or cross-linking episodes you can guarantee that you have not made an ambiguous link which can be absurdly prevalent when episodes have common names like Genesis (of which there are no less than 5 episodes named this). It is nigh impossible to auto-disambiguate a link and it is a much better visitor experience to skip through a redirect (which requires no extra work by the visitor) than to be faced with a dab page, or worse, the wrong article completely. Always having "Title (series episode)" whether it is the actual article or a redirect is the best choice from the perspective of a reader.
So, as long as "Title (series episode)" gets me to the correct article...I don't care what is decided above. [[User:Cburnett|Cburnett]] 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:This is a '''very''' good idea. I could support this: keep the ''article'' at the name that follows general Wikipedia guidelines, but ''always'' create a redirect with "Title (series episode)". Is this the compromise solution I was looking for above? If so — wow, that was quick. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::I kinda figured that was a given... —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 00:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::I have officially been made to feel dumb! you sir are a genius! This would be a perfect solution --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">[[User:Argash|''' Argash ''']] | [[User_talk:Argash|''' talk ''']] | [[Special:Contributions/Argash|''' contribs ''']]</span></small> 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I think this is the way the Lost articles have always been - or maybe that's just because of the move battles that have been going on. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:I like this idea as well. Depending on whether the name is unique or not:
:Unique: '''EpisodeTitle''' is article; '''EpisodeTitle (SeriesName)''', '''EpisodeTitle (episode)''' and '''EpisodeTitle (SeriesName episode)''' are all redirects
:Non-unique: '''EpisodeTitle (SeriesName episode)'''* is article; '''EpisodeTitle''' is disambig; '''EpisodeTitle (SeriesName)'''* and '''EpisodeTitle (episode)''' are redirects.
:<nowiki>*</nowiki> - Swap these two around if consensus goes that way. -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 02:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
'''Comment''' Always making the redirect would solve one of the problems claimed by the people wanting to deviate from the existing policy, and redirects are cheap. Even though I think pre-emptive dabbing is bad, making a redirect for any reasonable search term is good. Within articles readers will never see the dabbing because the links will be piped, so the consistant look will be there on tables and nav boxes. The reasoning behind minimizing the dabbing is to keep Wikipedia elegant and simple. Seeing no dab link to a dab just seems weird, but dab redirecting to no dab is definitely done, because recoding the pages that link to a redirect requires more server space than letting a redirect sit there. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 04:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:: The reason that we can't just do this with redirects, is because the title that displays at the top of the page, or in a category, is the "primary" title. To explain why this would be a problem, look here: [[:Category:Star Trek: Voyager episodes]]. This category has been stable for months, and I think it looks clean and professional. But what's important to understand, is that some of the people in the discussion on this page want to attack the articles in this category, and move them around to different styles of titles, through a misplaced notion of "enforcing" disambiguation guidelines. My own feeling is that the ''Star Trek'' category looks just fine the way it is and doesn't need "fixing.". Further, I believe that it makes sense to have wording in the Naming conventions guidelines that says that for ''some'' shows, it makes sense to use consistent suffixes. In fact, that's what the guideline ''did'' say since February 2006, until in September when Ned Scott went in out of the blue and vandalized it without consensus.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=77320340&oldid=66442562], and then tried to insist that re-adding the information was what required consensus![http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=84170749&oldid=84141191] So now, we have this longwinded "new" discussion here, which is being further confused by a few editors who are posting multiple times per day and attacking anyone who disagrees with them, so that they can force through a "majority" to justify disruption of the ''Star Trek'' categories. This is a violation of [[WP:POINT]], and I wish more people would see it for the disruption that it is. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::: There is more to Wikipedia than just articles about ''Star Trek'' episodes. Sure, all the entries in the category page have the same parenthetical disambiguation, satisfying some bizarre fetish for things to line up on category pages, but it makes Wikipedia as a whole ''more'' inconsistent, hard to use, and unpredictable, not less. You should consider the what's best for the project as a whole, and not what's best for the little corner that you care about. What Wikipedia needs are articles whose titles follow a consistent, project-wide system for disambiguation, not a warren of exceptions and loopholes that allow a group of obsessive fans to pack articles' titles with extraneous information where the only tangible benefit is merely an ''aesthetic'' one. [[User:Nohat|Nohat]] 06:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I agree, and I didn't know "we" were "only" discussing ''Star Trek'' episodes. [[User:Shannernanner|<span style="font-family: Palatino"><font color="indigo">Shannernanner</font></span>]] 06:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I also agree with Nohat. Furthermore, coming into the discussion when I did, I don't see any evidence of bad faith on anyone's part. And actually, whether one user may or may not be motivated by bad faith isn't really material to the discussion: a fairly wide spectrum of Wikipedians is now participating in the conversation, and that's a ''good'' thing. I, for one, have no desire to cause disruption on ''Star Trek'' pages. The Star Trek WikiProject has been notified of this discussion, and its members are welcome in this discussion. Personally, I don't think we need to start moving pages unless we get a clear consensus; indeed, moving pages ''now'' might be a violation of [[WP:POINT]]. However, a broad discussion among Wikipedians — which this is — is not. Let's [[Wikipedia:assume good faith|assume good faith]] and get on with working towards consensus, shall we? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 07:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::I really cannot see how the Star Trek point could be considered a sound argument. Wikipedia does encourage "common sense" exceptions to guidelines, but "I want to be different" is not a common sense reason. The exception is being made on the assumption that the existing policy has no purpose, but it does have a purpose. That purpose is to keep article titles simple, so that readers don't have difficulty getting into the article. No sound reason has been presented '''at all''' why any exception should be made against that reasoning in episode articles. Readers should not be able to get all the information they need to know out of a title, if they could then there would be no articles, only titles. Pointing out that no one complained until recently is definitely not a good point; people are syaing something now, deal with it now. Also, there was never any reason given as to why Star Trek was an exception to begin with, Ned was completely right to remove that from the guideline page. It confused me the first time I read that. I thought "What makes Star Trek so special?" and it turns out the answer is nothing. There's no reason Star Trek should be treated differently as there's nothing different about it from other tv series that makes the existing guideline not act exactly the same. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Page moves do ''not'' make something "unstable". I started to move pages per these guidelines, something I feel is totally acceptable even with the current discussion. To get as upset as you are over this is far more disruptive than the moves themselves. Did those page moves hurt anyone? I just can't understand how you feel this is hurting anything, at all. Where is the great injustice, the disruption, the negative side effect? I checked for double redirects on all of those page moves, so in all reality... nothing "bad" happened at all. Doing nothing does not make something stable, and doing something does not make something unstable. The discussion on this very page continues to back this all up, and you've failed to show how this is harmful or disruptive.
:::Second, calling my edits vandalism is immature, rude, and downright disrespectful. I find this highly ironic coming after your absurd [[User talk:Ned Scott#Civility|accusations on my talk page]]. I've fully explained my reasons for the change, and many other users on this talk page have agreed that the Star Trek example was a bad addition. Again, you attack me personally by calling my efforts "attacks". Who am I attacking? What do I have to personally gain from any of this? This is so bizarre, before this I thought of you as a really nice editor and wouldn't have thought something like this would become a dispute. You dug through my edit history to yell at me for using the word "fuck" in the edit summary for [[The Diarrhea Song]]. Why can't you just discuss this without trying to drag people into the mud? -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 07:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Ned, even though I agree that the ''Star Trek'' example was a bad precedent, I personally would not advise making those moves now. We're heading towards a clear consensus, but we're not quite there yet, and it would be better to wait until everyone is either on board with this, or at least knows that it's coming. Just my 2¢ worth. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 07:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I had started the page moves when I thought this discussion was going to blow over, and I mean no offense to anyone when I say that. The pages were being moved ''before'' this RfC was taking place and the discussion I was in was still Lost-based. Also [[:Category:Star Trek: Voyager episodes]] is not the right cat, you mean to talk about [[:Category:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes]] (ironically, there is one article without a disambig title in Voyager, done by some other user back in May). I've clearly stopped after seeing that ... well.. we'd be here for a while. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 07:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, Ned — didn't mean to rebuke you for something you weren't doing. It's hard to see page moves, since they don't show up in contribs and you've got to go to the log page, or check the individual article. I [[WP:AGF|assumed]] that Elonka was accurate in her description of what was happening. ''Mea culpa.'' —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 07:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::: I don't want to make it look like this entire discussion is "Ned's fault," but for the record, a history of Ned's page moves can be seen here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=&user=Ned+Scott&page=&limit=50&offset=0]. He has been engaging in multiple non-consensus moves on both the ''Lost'' articles and ''Star Trek'' articles, along with edit wars, to the point where the ''Lost'' guidelines page is protected [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lost/Episode_guidelines&action=history], progress after a unanimous mediation resolution has been stalled, and, as we can see, there's a major firestorm here at WP:NC-TV. Aside from the multiple non-consensus moves, a further look at Ned's contrib history shows that he's been going through redirect pages and blanking them [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_the_Best_Cowboys_Have_Daddy_Issues_%28Lost%29&diff=prev&oldid=84203985] and then re-creating them a few seconds later [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All_the_Best_Cowboys_Have_Daddy_Issues_%28Lost%29&diff=next&oldid=84203985] so as to "lock" his moves, making them undoable except with an admin's intervention. And since Ned brought it up, yes, by all means take a look at [[User_talk:Ned_Scott#Civility]], where confirmation can be seen that multiple users have been telling him to calm down, and to stop the disruption and incivility.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ned_Scott&oldid=84992521#Civility] --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 08:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Piling on more personal attacks really does make your point so much better. I've already linked to that section on my talk page, and I believe it speaks for itself. Three editors who disagreed with me in disputes decided to pile on. I invite anyone to actually look into those discussions and they will clearly see that being civil really hasn't been an issue. My dispute with Matthew was removing a "goal" from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject The 4400|WikiProject The 4400]] that aimed at making episode guides, a violation of WP:NOT. See the edit history for the exchange of words and see if it was uncivil. The other user, [[User:Fahrenheit451|Fahrenheit451]], was in a dispute with multiple editors over a fair use debate on [[Wikipedia talk:Fair use#Guidelines for "low" and "high" resolution]]. If you would like to point out where I was uncivil with them then please do.
::::::::The little revert war on the Lost episode guideline page wasn't really the best thing to do, but you were just as much apart of that as I was. Again, I continue to point out specifically, the mediation '''NEVER ONCE COMMENTED ON NAMING CONVENTIONS FOR EPISODE ARTICLES'''. It was not apart of the mediation, and it was not the results of a consensus. How many times do I have to repeat that?
::::::::I've already explained myself about the Star Trek articles. And, as I've pointed out, I'm not the only one who's moved those articles, and I'm clearly not the only one who thinks their naming is in error. I only moved those articles when I thought this issue was just being dragged out and would blow over. Since this has become a bigger debate I have not moved any Star Trek or Lost articles, yielding to the discussion.
::::::::I did intentionally move articles and then edit the redirect to prevent an undo. Again, wasn't probably the best thing to do at the time, but in all fairness ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Not_in_Portland&diff=84423608&oldid=84423558 you did the exact same thing]'' to '''all''' the other articles I didn't touch. As it stand now no Lost episode article can be freely moved back or forth, a childish move that both of us made in the heat of a debate. I apologies for that, I was wrong, but I won't take your blame too.
::::::::I'm done defending myself. I've made mistakes in how I approached this dispute, probably because I didn't even think highly of the dispute. None the less, the arguments and statements presented are still completely valid, no matter how flawed an editor I may or may not be. When you get into a debate that (for some strange reason) gets this heated you will find people like Elonka who will try to drag your name through the mud just because they disagree with you. Weeks before this, while I was still on Elonka's good side, she gave me a barnstar. I don't really think my editing habits have changed much in that time, but her attitude towards me sure did change when I disagreed. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 09:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it sounds like we're all reaching a group hug point here so let's let this particular thread die before it gets nastier. Let's leave all of the articles and redirects the way they are for now in the hopes this whole discussion comes to some conclusion (if such a thing is possible). It's beneficial to have them all locked at the moment - and I'd unlock them if I thought otherwise. In cases like this, two or three people always feel the urge to declare the discussion concluded and all of a sudden a wild move war breaks out. Ordinarily, I'd come down on intentionally blocking page moves - and I will be happy to unblock them myself when this discussion is concluded - but, in this case, it turns out to be helpful. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 12:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
: Wknight94, I realize that you are a fairly new admin, so I just wanted to doublecheck: You do realize that using your admin tools to get involved in any way in this issue, would be unethical, and a complete violation of [[WP:ADMIN|administrator policy]]? You are welcome to participate in this discussion as a normal editor, and you're even welcome to get angry and disagree -- but as soon as you start threatening to take advantage of your admin access to push your own agenda, you would be out of line. I sincerely hope that you are not considering this, and that you will abide by the answer that you gave when your adminship was being debated a couple months ago, where you yourself said, ''I don't believe in admin's using admin powers to resolve their own disputes. Even when the powers are used appropriately, it gives the appearance of impropriety.'' Whichever way this discussion goes, for or against your point of view, I would hope that you would realize that it would be better for any necessary actions to be taken by a completely noninvolved admin. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 17:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not the one intentionally editing redirects solely to block page moves. I'm also not the one shifting the same discussion from ___location to ___location in the hopes of shaking the opposition. You should probably leave the Wikipedia ethics lectures to someone else. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 18:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Uh...iIf I may inject here, creating a redirect doesn't pervent a move to that title. For example, the article "[[Koragg the Knight Wolf]] can still be moved to the title [[Leanbow]] or the title [[Koragg]]. In the case of the former option, [[Leanbow]] was created as a redirect and only has the edit of creation in its history. Wikimedia setup allows for this to be easily overwritten in a move. Similarly, [[Koragg]], the latter option, has only the edit of a move from that title to [[Koragg the Knight Wolf]]. In both cases, the end result is that an article can still move into a title held by a redirect with only one edit in its history. [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:Yep. And yet somehow, each of the current Lost episode redirects happen to have a second minor edit to them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whatever_the_Case_May_Be&diff=84401990&oldid=84401729], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everybody_Hates_Hugo&diff=81878255&oldid=81877709], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Live_Together%2C_Die_Alone&diff=84419008&oldid=84418956]... But I'm sure someone whose user page says they wish to be an admin someday would never do that on purpose so let's [[WP:AGF]]. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
== Shows that they are part of a series?! ==
Sorry but I have to ask about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28television%29&diff=84793019&oldid=84792117 this comment] saying disambiguating all of the titles "shows that they are part of a seires (sic)". The only place the disambiguated names would all be seen at once is in the category — but, by definition, just being in the category shows they are in a series! Folks in opposition to question 1 above apparently want to use disambiguation to do categorization. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with you there. in a similar vein, insisting that the names always contain "(SeriesName episode)" is like showing that the episodes cannot stand alone by themselves, they must be regarded as part of the whole. Does this mean they should just all be merged into "SeriesName (season x)?" There are sites out there like http://www.lostpedia.com which we could just link to. Of course it would be sad to see all the effort put into the articles to disappear.
:This is one of the good things about [[24 (TV series)]] - due to the nature of the show, there is an episode called "2 p.m. - 3 p.m." every season, and that episode is intrinsically linked to the rest of the episodes of that series. As a result, 24 episodes do not have individual articles, just season articles, and everyone seems happy with that! -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 04:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:: I am willing to bet that most people don't have a dang clue what an individual episode is named in a long running TV series. Can you name all of the simpsons episdoes by heart?? I am a huge fan amd can only name a few.. Take a look at this from a readers stand point, rather then an editors.. Your wandering through the episodes and the titles all have (Series) after them, until you hit one. You would be disoriented for a moment as you wonder if you accidently clicked something else. You figure out you didn't but you would be mad that there wasn't consistancy with in the article group. I am just trying to make wikipedia easier to use for the readers..[[User:EnsRedShirt|EnsRedShirt]] 09:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't think it works like that. What we're trying to say is that the articles just are not "floating around" like this. Most readers will find the episode article via a List of episodes article, a category, or a direct link from another article. This is how the vast majority of us come to such articles, and the actual title of the article won't change this process at all (for the reader). -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 09:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Exactly. It's the "wandering through" part where your argument breaks down. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 11:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Also, there are plenty of other "series" on Wikipedia which are not indicated as such in their articles' titles. If a reader were paging through the James Bond novels, they would go from [[Casino Royale]] to [[Live and Let Die (novel)]], to [[Moonraker]], to [[Diamonds Are Forever (novel)]]. Readers of the [[Discworld]] series would go from [[Wyrd Sisters]] to [[Pyramids (Discworld)]] to [[Guards! Guards!]] to [[Eric (novel)]]. A reader looking at albums by the Beatles goes from [[With the Beatles]] to [[A Hard Day's Night (album)]] to [[Beatles for Sale]] to [[Help! (album)]]. Nobody worries about whether such a reader would be "disoriented" by the lack of consistency of the members of these series.
:::::The fact that most people don't know the names of television episodes is immaterial, as I've said before. The job of a Wikipedia article's title isn't to provide context for the article's subject: the ''article'' does that. Nor is it to categorize them: the category system does that. The job of the title is to provide a file name that's clear, accurate, and unambiguous. Just because most readers won't know the names of episodes of ''The Simpsons'' is not an argument for moving [[Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire]] to [[Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire (The Simpsons episode)]]. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 20:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Well said Josiah! -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 23:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Exactly. — [[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 16:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
== Consensus? ==
Okay, who wants to decide whether this discussion is concluded? We've had two reverts at [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)]] today so folks are apparently getting antsy. The noise has died down a bit here too. I'm not going to be the one to do anything drastic (and I never intended to, Elonka) but this is a little nudge. :) —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 17:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:Yep.. couldnt agree with you more.. definitly a consensus for the suffix {{emot|:)}}. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/[[User:MatthewFenton|Fenton, Matthew]] [[User talk:MatthewFenton|Lexic Dark]] [[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|52278 Alpha 771]]</font></small> 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:I was just thinking the same thing, Wknight. I was trying to sum up the arguments for my own benefit, and came up with this:
<blockquote>The solution '''must''':
*Allow readers to easily find the article in question
*Allow other readers to easily find other articles with the same name
It would be '''preferrable''' to have a solution which:
*Does not create an exception to [[WP:D]]
*Allows linked lists of episodes to be formatted alike
*Provides a predictable format for editors to use when creating links
*Establishes a consistent naming convention which can be used by all TV shows
It would be '''nice''' to have a solution which:
*Provides series context within the article name
*Causes episode articles to be named consistently in watchlists and category lists</blockquote>
:In my mind, Cburnett's suggestion above meets all but the "it would be nice" criteria, and thus is the closest we've come to a consensus. I think it is extremely important for us to realize that we are attempting to create a ''guideline'' here, and as such, it would be perfectly appropriate for individual TV shows (Star Trek, Lost) to propose and adopt exceptions to it based on consensus among those shows' editors. It seems to me that those exceptions should be addressed and discussed on project pages for individual shows, and not here. --[[User:TobyRush|Toby Rush]] ‹ <big>[[User_talk:TobyRush|✆]]|[[Special:Contributions/TobyRush|✍]]</big> › 18:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:: Great summary, Toby. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:::There is a slight problem with what you've said about exceptions. Wikipedia recommends "common sense" exception. I want to do it differently is not a "common sense" exception. "Common sense" exceptions arise from special cases. There has been nothing to suggest that any tv series is a special case from the rest or that tv episode articles are a special case from any other article. Basically, you can't be deifferent for the sake of being different, especially when complaining about consistency. The redirects are a good solution to handle the editors' problem of not knowing which format each link should take. Consistency in linked lists was never a problem because all the links are piped anyway, same with navboxes. Finding of articles would come from other articles if readers did not already know the name of the episode, searching won't help. The "would be nice" things are things that are mostly selfish and overly obsessive. Categories don't need to be "pretty" and editors should know what's on their watchlists, not in the sense that anyone can name everything they are watching, but in the sense that if you see an article title they know what the article is. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 19:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::IMHO, this whole discussion should be carried over to the Lost case in particular. It was pretty clear from the discussion as well as notes leading up to the discussion that Lost was the series at issue here. Let's not use TobyRush's exception clause(s) above to jump back to the Lost discussion and start over. The ties between the two are obvious enough that starting over is not necessary. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 20:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Regarding exceptions: I actually agree with you, Jay32183, and I didn't actually say anything about "I want to do it differently" vs. "common sense." If the editors of an individual TV show propose an exception to this guideline, there would need to be common-sense justification for that exception, and that should be sussed out in the good-faith discussion of the proposal. [[WP:D]] itself is a [[Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.|guideline]] (not a policy), and my remarks above about exceptions were only meant to point out that TV:NC falls in the same category. In other words, if the Star Trek folks feel that they have a rationale for not following TV:NC, a consensus-building discussion should take place there. And since this is Wikipedia, we're all invited. :)
:::::Regarding the "it would be nice" section: How about "Some editors think it would be nice to have a solution which:"? As I mentioned, these are the criteria which are ''not'' met by Cburnett's proposal. I, for one, am okay with that, especially if it means achieving consensus. --[[User:TobyRush|Toby Rush]] ‹ <big>[[User_talk:TobyRush|✆]]|[[Special:Contributions/TobyRush|✍]]</big> › 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::My point about the "it would be nice" parts was that we don't need to go out of our way to meet those. If a decent proposal happened to, then great. But let's not go overboard. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Although there is still vocal dissent from a few editors, I think that there is a broad consensus for Cburnett's suggestion. I think we're ready to put it on the page. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
: I'm not comfortable with this being a recommendation for -all- episode articles. I think this is fine for something like ''Lost'' where a WikiProject is involved, but it's simply overkill for most cases. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::I concur. For cases where few or none of the episodes would need dabbing ([[:Category:Friends episodes]]), let's not make people feel they have no choice but create redirects - because that's what will happen. How about simply "Editors are free to create redirects with..."? —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Right, no need to force it. But allowing it makes it easier for some editors. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 21:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:::How about "Editors are encouraged to create redirects with..."? That way we're not suggesting it's mandatory, but we show that it is ''approved''. After all, redirects are cheap. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 21:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I can agree with that. That way editor's that need it, get it, and editors who don't, aren't forced to do any extra work. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 21:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::: Josiah, thank you very much for your efforts here. However, I'm a bit confused as to what you mean when you say, "put it on the page." If you mean your summary that Toby listed above, I am fully in support. However, if you mean Cburnett's suggestion, I am not. Could you please clarify, so that we can wordsmith the parts that are causing confusion? Or if we'd like an example of proposed wording, my suggestion is that in the "Episodes" section, we expand the paragraph to say, "''Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g. [[Bart the Genius]], but [[The Sting (Futurama)]]. Certain shows such as [[:Category:Star Trek episodes|''Star Trek'']] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines|''Lost'']] may use different formats. When in doubt, it is best to make new episode articles consistent with the practice that is already in existence for that program.''" --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::I'm very much against this wording. It implies there is something special about Star Trek and Lost. The only evidence presented that they are special is that the editors don't like the guideline, which is not a common sense exception. If there were actually something special that made the naming covention not work properly, then an exception would make sense. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::As I said above, I considered that to be an acceptable fallback position in case there was not sufficient consensus for a more general guideline. My reading of the discussion is that there is a broad consensus for Cburnett's suggestion, with only a few dissenters (notably, yourself and Matthew Fenton). There comes a time in any policy-building process when one must fish or cut bait; I judged that time to have come. I may have been too hasty, but I still think that there is quite broad support for Cburnett's compromise, as currently worded on the guideline page. It is not always possible to find a solution that is acceptable to ''all'' parties; I think that this one is as close as we're going to get. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 21:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::A guideline that ends with "...but, if any single editor feels their case is different, they can feel free to shift back into free-for-all mode and ignore this guideline" is not a guideline. That's anarchy. Anarchy was clearly not the consensus here. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 21:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::The core of this whole dispute is to not have actual articles with disambig titles when disambig is not needed. Redirects are fine, but the article itself should only disambig when necessary. As it stands now Lost nor Star Trek have a rational reason to be exempt from this. We will not put in an exemption into this guideline for Lost or Star Trek at the very least. Elonka, you disagree with this, and it seems you will to your dying breath, but get over it. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 21:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
If it would help us to reach a more complete consensus, we could add a sentence like TobyRush suggested above. Another alternative could be:
::''Some WikiProjects have previously established guidelines that encourage consistent use of disambiguating phrases. This guideline neither supercedes nor is superceded by these WikiProject guidelines.''
How's that, Elonka? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:::This is actually what has gotten me so fusterated about this situation. The idea that a WikiProject with weak rational can make contradicting guidelines is a very bad idea. Again, I point out that this was never a consensus of WikiProject Lost or the mediation case about Lost episodes, but even if it was there's still not a valid reason for exception. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:::: Josiah, I agree that sometimes consensus cannot get 100% approval, but I think it's important to ensure that we're at least trying for it. In other words, I don't think it's appropriate to start a thread and say, "We have consensus," and then two hours later make major guideline changes. We're obviously still discussing this issue, plus we also need to give other "infrequent" editors time to weigh in, rather than just listening to the voices of those who are posting multiple times per day. I would also point out that the above poll should not be given any "consensus" weight, since its wording was obviously being changed multiple times throughout the course of the poll.
:::: What I would recommend, since this is obviously such a controversial issue, is that we agree on potential new wording for the guideline, and then present it as such, here on the talk page, with a new section entitled "Guideline addition/change". This is how I've seen other such major changes debated in other parts of Wikipedia. Then we let that discussion run for a week, and make sure everyone's had a chance to read it and think about it, and/or suggest wording changes. If we're all in agreement at the end of the week, then we put it into the guideline. If not, we can follow one of the other suggestions in [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] or [[WP:DR]].
:::: Getting back to the suggested sentence, I would change it a bit so it doesn't just look like a grandfather clause. How about: "''Some WikiProjects may have separate guidelines for a different style of episode title, such as the consistent use of disambiguating phrases even when not absolutely required. This guideline neither supercedes nor is superceded by these WikiProject guidelines, and changes to the titles of those WikiProject's episodes should be debated within those respective communities.''" --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 22:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Agian, you're creating a special case where no special case exists, you just aren't naming your special cases. In order for a common sense exception to occur there has to be a common sense distinction. In terms of the existing policy being applied to the title of any individual episode article, all individual episode articles are identical. Common sense dictates that identical situations be treated the same. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 22:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::(edit conflict) At the very least, a clause would be needed saying that such decisions need to be made outside of the particular project. Otherwise, you're encouraging the formation of splinter factions and mini-Wikipedias. You end up with ridiculous things like every article related to the band Heart has a heart character in the article name because a bunch of overzealous Heart fans had a vote one day. As much as I hate the "professional" word being thrown around here, the "professional" look of Wikipedia is dependant on the overall Wikipedia following given guidelines which don't include project-specific exceptions like what exists here. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 22:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I disagree, Wknight... I think those decisions should be made within the project in question. There are no closed clubs on Wikipedia; if you found that the Heart fans were pulling this kind of stunt, you could make yourself part of the discussion toward revising the Heart guidelines to be match the standard practice. (And call me... I'll support you!)
:::::::That said, though, I don't really see any reason to talk about ''any'' exceptions on TV:NC; the universal rule is that ''justifiable'' exceptions to guidelines are always okay. It seems to me that there needs to be a consensus-seeking discussion over at the Lost and Star Trek WikiProjects; if those discussions reach consensus that the exceptions are justified, then it can be posted on their respective NC pages. --[[User:TobyRush|Toby Rush]] ‹ <big>[[User_talk:TobyRush|✆]]|[[Special:Contributions/TobyRush|✍]]</big> › 22:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::But I don't have any Heart articles on my watchlist. Do you? For all we know, that discussion is already underway and only Heart fans know about it! —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 23:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't have any on my watchlist either. But it seems to me that Wikipedia (pretty successfully, I might add) operates on the principle that there are more editors striving to maintain the standards than those who would wish otherwise. So given the number of people who ''do'' have Heart articles on their watchlist, at least one of them should find that stunt a bad idea and call attention to it.
:::::::::And, by the way, I just [[Heart (band)|checked]] [[Heart discography|and]] [[Ann Wilson|they're]] [[Nancy Wilson (guitarist)|behaving]] [[Heart (Heart album)|over]] [[What About Love|there]]. :) --[[User:TobyRush|Toby Rush]] ‹ <big>[[User_talk:TobyRush|✆]]|[[Special:Contributions/TobyRush|✍]]</big> › 23:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::: Heh. And yes, Toby brings up a good point about the lack of closed discussions. In my experience, Wikipedia is pretty good at self-regulating itself. For example, earlier this year there were concerns that decisions were being made at the "Polish Wikipedian notice board" (especially about naming conventions) that seemed to go against other Wikipedia guidelines such as [[WP:UE|Use English]]. That particular group had organized themselves into a consistent voting block, and were working their way through dozens of different articles around Wikipedia, moving them to non-English names. This became a dispute for awhile, until it was pointed out that ''anyone'' could participate in the discussions on that board, not just the Polish members of Wikipedia. So other editors from different points of view added the noticeboard to their watchlists, and the "voting block" nature of the group got evened out. In terms of this discussion about television episode naming conventions, though my own initial interest in this discussion was via the ''Lost'' articles, at this point, I'm honestly trying to come up with guidelines that can be helpful all over Wikipedia. As Wikipedia grows (and we're at around the 1.465 million article mark, last I checked, and doubling every six months), there are going to be thousands of television-related articles over the place. Many of them can and should use similar formats, yes, but every so often there are going to be reasons for good faith exceptions, and this Guideline should be written to allow for that. Ultimately, I keep in mind that the vast majority of editors working on their separate sections of Wikipedia, are good faith individuals who are here to improve Wikipedia, not to damage it. Wikipedia will grow more smoothly if guidelines are used for their intention, which is to give guidance, rather than to rigidly enforce rules which may not make sense in all situations. And lastly, yes, if any subgroup of editors started insisting on putting little hearts in article titles, give me a call, too, as I agree that that would be a Bad Thing, and I'd happily participate in that discussion to throw in my $0.02. :) --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::All guidelines are like that by default, and there is no need to note that reasonable exception can be made to anything. That being said, a good deal of this debate was done in a Lost-specific discussion, and not a lot has changed. If you want us to change talk pages, then ok, but it won't really change anything. And there's no such thing as a "good faith exceptions", only reasonable exceptions. Exceptions need to have ''reasons'' and shouldn't be just assumed. I made that mistake originally by assuming that there had to be a good reason behind the Star Trek example, which was why I was originally in support of your position. Then I find out that it was added for no reason at all. Unless we can put such an example in a reasonable context then it shouldn't be included. As far as Lost goes, there has yet to be a reasonable argument to support "always disambig", but there has been reasonable argument to follow existing naming conventions.
:::::::::::This isn't a power move or anything like that, it's just rational guideline making. The reason we make guidelines is so we don't have to have the same discussion on every talk page and come to conclusions over and over again. Granted, that should happen to some degree, in that nothing is set in stone, but the point being is that we can refer to a rational consensus instead of having to come to one every time the issue is brought up. If we are going to make exceptions without reasonable arguments then the guideline loses it's value and effect. It doesn't matter if we come to this conclusion here or on a Lost talk page, we'll be having the same discussion because no new or reasonable arguments have been brought up. Why have this same debate for 20 different WikiProjects when nothing has changed?
:::::::::::That being said, I don't mind that we keep the discussion open for longer for infrequent editors. The people who've already commented, including myself, are just repeating themselves now. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 00:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Am i the only one who sees a major contradiction in how it is the same people who want the suffix because it is creates '''consistency''' advocating for certain TV series to be ''exceptions'', which reduces consistency over all the TV series? What's the point of doing something that's mostly redundant just to make one tiny group of articles more consistent, but wikipedia in general less?
And since when did small individual wikiprojects have power to make decisions that override wikipedia-wide guildlines? Especially when wikiprojects can be so small that it's basically one or two people making decisions, and then claiming "the project reached a consensus". --[[User talk:Yaksha|<font color="#330066"><b>`/aksha</b></font>]] 01:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
: If two people are working together on something non-controversial, then yes, they should be able to be [[WP:BOLD|bold]] and move forward with whatever that they're working on, without worrying about having to check consensus for each grammar change. If something is controversial though, then I think we should trust that other editors are going to be popping in to that WikiProject [[Wikipedia:Eventualism|eventually]]. But I still firmly believe that when you've got a large enough group of editors who are very familiar with a particular type of subject matter, such as in a WikiProject, that it usually makes sense to trust their [[WP:AGF|good faith]] in formatting articles in a way that they believe makes the most sense for their particular case. This doesn't mean going wild and putting the "External links" section at the top of the article, but it does mean making good faith exceptions to certain guidelines, such as in this "suffixes" issue. As I've pointed out before, I see no damage that's been caused to Wikipedia by the consistent system at [[:Category:Star Trek episodes]]. The only concern seems to be, "That's not how we usually do it," which isn't a good enough reason to go in and disrupt those categories. See [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]]. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 18:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
::To assume good faith is one thing, but we can do more than assume. In these situations we can actually look for the conversations and / or other things to show where the rational came from. There are many situations where something is added, not because of consensus, but because it was just there and no one really thought much of it. A good example of that would be the Star Trek example. No one actually discussed it, but it found it's way in there and it could be easy to assume there was a "consensus" behind it.
::Also, WikiProjects, by no means whatsoever, have any [[WP:OWN|ownership]] or authority by simply being a WikiProject. WikiProjects are just centralized points of collaboration, not a governing body.
::Again, making page moves is ''not'' a disruption. A category of Star Trek articles not having any activity does not make it "stable", and to make page moves there doesn't hurt anyone or disrupt anything. Page move wars, which both you and I have been guilty of, are harmful, but that's why we're having this discussion, so we'll only have to move things once. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 19:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
:Wikiprojects don't have special authority. Even when there is a large group of people who all agree, it doesn't put them above wikipedia-wide guildlines (which an even larger group of people should have agreed to.) And that's assuming there is indeed a ''large'' group of people, who ''all agree''. Which is all too often not the case. A lack of complaints from the rest of the project doesn't mean agreement. It could just mean the rest of the project didn't notice, didn't care, or did their part of AGF and assumed the person making the changes was following guildlines.
:There is no such thing as a "good faith exception" [[WP:AGF]] simply means any ''prelimarily assumptions'' are to be made in good faith. It doesn't mean to stubbornly stick to ''assumptions'' when facts become avaliable. When an exception to a rule is made, we AGF - that is, we assume there is a valid reason for the exception. However, if upon request, the people making the exception are unable to provide a valid reason, then sticking to the assumption becomes a case of stupidity. So yes, of course we start off assuming good faith, but then if the facts prove us wrong, we stop believing those prelimary assumptions.
:You seem to like consistency a lot. Has it not occured to you that unless Star Trek episodes is the ''only'' thing someone reads on wikipedia, this kind of exceptions to general naming schemes will actually reduce consistency for all other readers? --[[User talk:Yaksha|<font color="#330066"><b>`/aksha</b></font>]] 06:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
::It seems to me you have misunderstood the concept of [[WP:POINT]]; an example of such is not, per your example, moving all the ''Star Trek'' episodes per the proper naming convention guidelines, but moving all the ''Star Trek'' episodes from [EpisodeName] (Star Trek episode) to [EpisodeName] (Star Trek gobbledy-goo) to "illustrate the point" that consistent article disambigs are not necessarily helpful. [[User:Shannernanner|<span style="font-family: Palatino"><font color="indigo">Shannernanner</font></span>]] 12:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
==Naming is not the most important issue==
I hope that everyone at least can agree that worrying about an episode article name should be the last thing we think about. It is first important to determine if individual articles are even the best way to go. A "natural" progress for inclusion of episode information should be:
# Basic list and very short summary in main series article
# Split basic list into a separate "List of SeriesName episodes", longer summaries
# Split "List of" into "SeriesName (season #)" articles, with longer summaries and production information
# Split individual, noteworthy, episodes out of season articles
# Move episodes into individual articles (when each episode attains "noteworthiness" just by virtue of being part of such a popular series)
Too many bad situations are caused by people jumping right to #5. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:This is correct, Netaholic, and indeed it's the order of business suggested at [[WP:EPISODE]]. And perhaps that guideline should be enforced more strictly than it is. However, since people ''are'' creating individual episode articles, it would be nice if those articles were named in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. That's what we're working on here. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
:Over all, it's not the most important issue, but this is [[WP:TV-NAME]].. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't suppose there's a place to propose merges that can result in binding decisions (like the way AfD produces a final binding decision on whether to delete or not)? --[[User talk:Yaksha|<font color="#330066"><b>`/aksha</b></font>]] 01:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
:: On this episode article issue, I mostly agree with Netoholic. When we start documenting a particular series, we shouldn't immediately create individual episode articles, but instead should first start with a basic overview page, which perhaps contains a brief summarized list of episodes. Then as this grows, the list can be split off to a "List of episodes" page. Then if the series is shown to be definitely notable, that list can start hubbing out to individual episodes, starting with the most notable ones. Where I think I disagree though, is that ''only'' the most notable episodes should have individual pages, and that others should be kept strictly in summary form. I think that if a series is already at the point of creating individual episode pages, it becomes very difficult to decide which episodes are "page-worthy" and which aren't, so if someone really wants to go to the trouble of creating a page on every episode at that point, it's not going to hurt anything. But the series should definitely start at the "one-page-fits-all" point, rather than immediately jumping to a later step. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 18:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
::: It's more like #4 above is a transitional step (usually) to #5. I think there are a few situations a series would have only a few separate episode articles ([[:Category:M*A*S*H episodes|M*A*S*H is a good example]], 11 seasons, and only a handful of episodes are of note). That is not the most common case, though, and I think most series should stop at #2 or #3. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 09:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
==How to proceed==
Since the old poll got so tangled, I recommend we close it, and discuss our next step, such as working on a potential new paragraph for the Guideline, by finding wording that everyone agrees with. If we have obvious consensus, it can go into the guideline. If we don't have consensus, then we work on changing the wording until we do. For example, in other guidelines where there was controversy, the way I've seen it handled, is that in that particular section of the guideline, it simply says, "Controversy exists about whether or not action A or action B is better."
I especially liked TobyRush's summary up above, which did a good job of reflecting the opinions here, so I started with that and put it into more of a paragraph form. Here's my suggestion, but feel free to suggest different wording:
===Potential new guideline wording ===
<blockquote>
''There is some controversy about the exact way to title episode articles, but the general consensus is that in most cases, articles about individual episodes should use the title of the episode itself, unless that title is already in use, in which case the episode article should include (<seriesname> episode) as a disambiguating suffix. ''
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''In some cases, certain series may use slightly different systems, such as to use a disambiguating suffix of simply (<seriesname>) or even to include a consistent suffix on all episodes of a particular series, regardless of whether or not they are strictly required by disambiguation rules. Advantages to this system are that linked lists of episodes use a consistent titling scheme, and it becomes easier to link between episodes if many of them (or even the majority) already had suffixes. Other advantages are that it is convenient to include series context with an article's title, categories look more consistent, and specific subject areas are easier to see in editor watchlists. Disadvantages are that there may be some confusion if a suffix which normally implies disambiguation, is used on an article that did not need disambiguating; and the additional unneeded suffix results in a longer article title than necessary. So, these "exception" types of methods remain controversial, and are generally discouraged (see the talk page for more information).''
</blockquote>
How's that? Does this address everyone's concerns? --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
:I don't see a need to change the current guideline at all, actually. When someone comes up with an exception that is necessary for a good reason (unlike the Lost exception proposal), then add it. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 23:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
:No. At the risk of sounding uncivil. no no no no a thousand times NO. You are saying the EXACT SAME THING over and over, and we keep telling you no. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 23:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph looks fine. The rest just seems to be an excuse to let people who don't prefer the chosen method to make exceptions, which makes the whole thing a waste of time. ''In some cases, certain series''.. no no no! There is absolutely NO logical reason why one series should use a different format to another series, and why any TV series should use a different format to Wikipedia in general. The only reasons seem to be "it is already like that" and "the WikiProject <TV series> editors like it that way". The advantages and disadvantages listed are not specific to any one show; and as such, different shows shouldn't stray from them. ''it becomes easier to link between episodes'' .. no, not if you edit articles about different shows and every show has a different format. ''specific subject areas are easier to see in editor watchlists'' - this is what "shared watchlists" (such as [[Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia/Related pages|this]]) are for. -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:Exceptions are not just discouraged, they are ''against'' guildline. If there is a very good reason, then an exception may be okay. But there isn't. Why do we even need a guildline change? Our current problem looks more like it's about whether or not to allow arbitrary exceptions.
:It's convient to include series context with an article's title? No...it really isn't. Shortest title means less typeing for the person naming the title, for people wanting to reach it from url edit or the go box, and for people trying to link to the article. Titles are titles, that's it.
:So no, i don't think it really addresses anyone's concerns except maybe your own. And no, don't like it, for those reasons and all the ones already pointed out. --[[User talk:Yaksha|<font color="#330066"><b>`/aksha</b></font>]] 01:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::OK, I may have been premature in my [[WP:BOLD|bold]] inclusion of Cburnett's suggestion into the guideline. However, is there anyone besides Elonka who has a problem with it? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 01:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Not really. Not sure it's necessary but it's also not objectionable IMHO. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Okay, here's an idea that might interest some people. I may be wrong but can't you actually add a category to a redirect? Then the redirect appears in the category listing. If you then remove the category from the article itself, all you would see is the redirect in the category listing, not the article itself. I think I read somewhere where this same issue had come up and this method was proposed as a solution. I have no idea where that was though... Thoughts? —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 02:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::won't work. sorry to put it so bluntly. The whole point of a category is so someone reading an article, when reaching the bottom, can get to the category with lots of other similar aricles. If you remove the category from the article itself, it defeats the purpose since readers will never get to it. Redirects can be added to categories, but someone clicking on a redirect will never notice the category because they...get redirected. For it to work, we'd have to add all the articles into a category that redirects to the category with the redirects (not sure if category redirecting is even possible), and someone clicking on a redirect would then be redirected to the article. Way too messy if you ask me. --[[User talk:Yaksha|<font color="#330066"><b>`/aksha</b></font>]] 02:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Yep. Was a longshot. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 02:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I was under the impression all Cburnett suggested was that redirects also be created so that whichever naming convention was used for articles, both would "work". This is fine, and will work quite happily with:
<blockquote>
:::''Articles about individual episodes should use the title of the episode itself, unless that title is already in use, in which case the episode article should include (<seriesname> episode) as a disambiguating suffix. ''
</blockquote>
:::-- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 04:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I'm still very much against (NameofSeries episode) when the word episode isn't actually necessary. If we strictly followed the dab guidelines as already written the word episode should only be added if not adding episode creates an ambiguous article title, such as when an episode is named after a character or setting that also has an article. I very much agree with that because it creates the simplest, shortest disambiguation. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 05:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::Ok, lets look at it from another angle. Assuming no knowledge about an article, what would a title with "(Lost)", "(Medium)", "(24)", "(House)" or "(Oz)" indicate? Not much. So whats wrong with "(episode)"? That tells you exactly what it is. It also aligns with standard naming conventions - you will find we have articles about people ending in "(politician)" or "(musician)" rather than "(Australia)" or "(Canada)". -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 06:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the poll that took place the last week or so is essentially saying that the guideline is fine the way it is. Frankly, I'm not sure what the purpose of this new section is. Enough with the [[false compromise]]s and [[red herring]]s. We're all repeating ourselves yet again. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 05:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:It looks to me like the poll is showing a preference for (<seriesname> episode) which is different to what [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)]] says. Why do you think it says the guideline is fine the way it is? -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 06:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::I think he's talking about the poll showing a preference for simply not using unneeded disambiguation, so the current guildline of using disambiguation only when needed is fine. Meaning there's no need to change it or debate about what form of disambiguation to use.
::Although i do agree the "episode" is redundant for episode articles that do need the disambiguation. It simply adds on another layer of disambiguation. "''Assuming no knowledge about an article, what would a title with "(Lost)", "(Medium)", "(24)", "(House)" or "(Oz)" indicate? Not much. So whats wrong with "(episode)"? That tells you exactly what it is.''" But the title of an article isn't supposed to serve the function of telling you what the article is. It's supposed to be a name, that's all. If titles were supposed to tell people what the article was about, we may as well be doing things like adding "(Chemical Element)" after articles like [[Astatine]] to tell non-chemists exactly what the article is. --[[User talk:Yaksha|<font color="#330066"><b>`/aksha</b></font>]] 08:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree with the "disambiguate only when necessary" part of it. It's the second part where the poll results differ from what the page currently says. Astatine doesn't require disambiguation, which is fine, but articles like [[Mercury (element)]] do have it. My point was that "Lost", "24", "House" and so on have much more common meanings than the TV shows, thus they don't do much to clarify the meaning/content of the article, which is the point of disambiguation. -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 08:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::::The point of the tag is to differentiate the article from other existing articles of the same name. It's not meant to add anything to the article. It's not a mini-summary of the article and it's not a part of the content. It should be the bare minimum required to distinguish any two existing articles of the same title. That's why we have [[Mercury (mythology)]] and not [[Mercury (Roman mythology)]] or [[Mercury (Roman god)]]. Just because ''Lost'', ''24'' and ''House'' have common meanings doesn't mean we have to address that in the article's title. Further, the most likely time the tag is important to a user would be in a dab page, where it's supposed to have a clarifying description such as "EpisodeName (Lost), an episode of the television series [[Lost (TV series)|Lost]]". ''That'' description sounds more like what you're talking about.
::::If we decide that the tags are meant to be descriptive (they're not), then we have to determine ''how descriptive'' -- is (Lost episode) enough? There was another [[Lost (2001 TV series)|TV show called Lost]], after all. Should it be EpisodeName (Lost (2004 TV series) episode)? We should just stick with what works for the rest of Wikipedia: use the simplest disambiguation possible and avoid the issue entirely. -[[User:Anþony|Anþony]] 11:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::BTW yes, I was refuting the original post in this section asking for verbiage about exceptions to the guideline (sorry for the confusion). No such exception language is necessary. As far as how to disambiguate when it ''is'' necessary, I abstain on that part. That doesn't seem particularly standard anywhere. In the baseball section, some bios are dabbed with (baseball player), some just with (baseball), some with (pitcher), etc. I almost never bother messing with those because I don't find it particularly important. I tend to agree with using a little as possible to actually disambiguate - that's the final goal of suffix tags - but I'm not a zealot either way. —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 11:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::I agree — I don't really care that much whether the disambiguation tag says "episode" or not, although I tend to go with the shorter one. The important thing is that we ''don't'' encourage disambiguation tags when they're not necessary. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
===About guidelines and consensus===
Per [[Wikipedia:Guideline]]: ''"People are sometimes tempted to call a vote on a guideline, but this is a bad idea because it polarizes the issue (see [[WP:VIE|Voting is evil]] for details). Instead, a guideline is made by listening to objections and resolving them."'' As regards this naming conventions guideline, it is clear that there are objections, so the guideline should reflect that there is controversy. A few people repeatedly saying that there isn't controversy, and making personal attacks or otherwise harassing anyone raising good faith objections, is not "listening to objections and resolving them." I have offered a compromise wording, which is to state a primary method of titling episodes, while admitting that exceptions (and controversy) exist. I think that's pretty fair. If someone wants to suggest different wording though, I'm listening. --[[User:Elonka|Elonka]] 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
: This guideline clearly is controversial per the extreme objections to it and per Elonka’s above comments. A few people popping up after there friends reply saying “I AGREE”, “Me two!!”, “Yuperz! Me agrees as well.”, “Wow” I couldn’t agree more”, “Agree, agree, agree!” so does not cancel out the ''significant'' objections of others. <small>[[User:MatthewFenton|MatthewFenton]] ([[User talk:MatthewFenton|talk]]{{·}} [[Special:Contributions/MatthewFenton|contribs]]{{·}} <span class="plainlinks" style="color:#002bb8">[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username={{urlencode:MatthewFenton}}&site=en.wikipedia.org count]</span>{{·}} [[Special:Emailuser/MatthewFenton|email]])</small> 21:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I see no such mindless agreements here, Matthew. The participants in this conversation have expressed reasons and support for their positions, and I have yet to see a fully reasoned objection to the current wording. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::I'll use the term [[false compromise]] again. The idea that 24 people need to meet 7 people halfway is very much false. We've listened (with surprising patience at multiple sites) to the objections and the resolution as I understand it is "leave it as it is". You can throw around [[red herring]]s about personal attacks and harassment all day if you want - the resolution still seems crystal clear to me. (Again, this is in regards to the exception verbiage which I believe is your chief issue). —[[User:wknight94|Wknight94]] ([[User talk:wknight94|talk]]) 21:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:::I also dispute the notion that those supporting the current wording are treating this as a "vote" or ignoring the concerns of the dissenters. There is a broad agreement, with a few vocal opponents. Wknight94 and others have given clear reasons about why it is not a good idea to include mention of "exceptions" in the guideline. If the objections were more widespread, I could support such a wording, but as it is there are only a few editors objecting, and they have not (in my view) sufficiently justified their arguments. WikiProject precedent is not a sufficient reason to formalize an exception to core Wikipedia guidelines. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:Elonka, over and over again, any time a naming guideline for a particular area violates the basic naming conventions for Wikipedia, in particular [[WP:NC]], [[WP:NC(CN)]] and [[WP:D]], controversy and conflict errupt. The only way to have a naming convention specific to some area not conflict with the basic naming principles is to have it apply ''only'' when a known ambiguity issue exists. The purpose of these area-specific conventions should be to specify what to do in a particular naming area ''when and only when there is an ambiguity situation to resolve'', so that ambiguities are resolved in a consistent fashion. But please do not make the mistake of then using these ambiguity-resolving naming conventions on articles that don't even have an ambiguity issue to resolve; that's blatant and pointless violation of the general naming guidelines, and leads to conflict and controversy. Why advocate for that? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 21:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
== Treat each article independently ==
Every article in Wikipedia, including every article about a TV episode, should be named in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, including [[WP:NC]], [[WP:NC(CN)]], [[WP:D]], etc. More specific naming guidelines should only apply in those cases where a known ambiguity issue exists. That is, if the name of the episode is not used in Wikipedia for any other article, that should be the name of the article about that episode, ''period''. If there is an ambiguity issue, then it's appropriate to look for guidelines here and/or at an appropriate Wikiproject, but, even then, those are only guidelines. In the end, each article should be treated independently. Trying to impose a naming convention that inherently violates fundamental general Wikipedia naming conventions only creates conflict, and understandably so. — [[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 16:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:"More specific naming guidelines should only apply in those cases where a known ambiguity issue exists." Where specifically is that said on one of the pages you linked to? --[[User:Milo H Minderbinder|Milo H Minderbinder]] 17:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, it's not stated anywhere, and, so, we have endless bickering and consternation. It ''should'' say that somewhere so that we would not have all this conflict. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 18:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:You are correct that "trying to impose a naming convention that inherently violates fundamental general Wikipedia naming conventions only creates conflict." That's why the current wording of the guideline is an attempt to make certain that television episodes ''follow'' the general Wikipedia naming conventions, instead of being an exception to them. It's an effort to avoid ''future'' conflict. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 18:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
::Understood, and I support the current wording of the guideline for TV episodes for this reason. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 19:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
== Move survey in progress: Hole in One ==
There is a TV episode article entitled [[Hole in One]]. There is a requested move survey to move it to [[Hole in One (TV episode)]] at [[Talk:Hole in One]]. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 22:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
== <s>Walking</s> <s>Limping</s> Crawling up Mount Consensus ==
It seems to me that we have a tentative consensus about the general guideline, and there are now two items upon which there is still some disagreement:
# Whether or not to acknowledge here the possibility of exceptions to this guideline
# Whether to use "(SeriesName)" or "(SeriesName episode)" when disambiguation is deemed necessary
'''Regarding the first item:''' Since [[WP:D]] states that "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception," we should recognize that there may be a situation where an exception to this guideline is appropriate. Rather than use [[Lost]] or [[Star Trek]], for which there is guideline-related disagreement, allow me to suggest a hypothetical television show, [[Wikipedians (TV series)|Wikipedians]]. This show, described by its fans as "a show about userboxes," has an very interesting distinction: its episodes are named in such a way that the ''episode article titles require pre-emptive disambiguation.'' In fact, naming an episode article without a disambiguating phrase '''would cause the internet to collapse.''' So it exists as a common-sense exception to the guidelines here at TV:NC.
(Now, before you argue that there is no such show, remember that WP:D notes that guidelines can have exceptions, and so this serves as the hypothetical common-sense exception that may someday be found, and that we should accept and be prepared for.)
So, assuming the existence of this hypothetical series, do we make any mention of exceptions here, on the guideline page? If we do not, we are trusting that future editors will know about [[WP:D]]'s allowance of common-sense exceptions. If we do mention the exceptions on the guideline page, we risk encouraging editors to find reasons to make needless exceptions to the guideline. Elonka's argument, as I understand it, is that we should make this decision based on the possibility of series ''that have justifiable reasons to exempt themselves from the guideline.'' I think that's a extremely valid argument that is in keeping with [[Wikipedia:Guideline]]. (Elonka, I hope I'm not misrepresenting you here!) That said, I am leaning toward not including the exception verbiage here, but I can certainly see the merit of doing it both ways.
[[Lost]] and [[Star Trek]] are both great shows (well, I actually haven't seen Lost yet, so keep the spoilers away, please), but they're not helping us achieve consensus here. It seems to me that we should work toward consensus on a general guideline, and ''then'' take that guideline to individual shows and debate there whether or not the shows qualify as common sense exceptions. It's hard to focus on the merits of a general guideline when controversial exceptions keep getting thrown in, and I think it will help those individual discussions if we can create a general guideline and achieve broad consensus on it.
'''Regarding the second item:''' One of the reasons we chose against pre-emptive disambiguation was that the title of the article need not establish context (that's the job of the first line of the article itself). Therefore, the disambiguating phrase need only serve to identify the article among the other articles on the disambiguation page. If someone is looking for the article about Futurama article "The Sting," they will quickly determine that [[The Sting (Futurama)]] is what they're looking for, and not [[The Sting|The Sting (1973 film)]]. However, as Josiah pointed out above, [[Dalek (Doctor Who)]] would need to be expanded to [[Dalek (Doctor Who episode)]] to distinguish it from [[Dalek|Dalek (Doctor Who race)]]. --[[User:TobyRush|Toby Rush]] ‹ <big>[[User_talk:TobyRush|✆]]|[[Special:Contributions/TobyRush|✍]]</big> › 23:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:Well said, Toby. We could use your and Josiah's logic and reason over at [[Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (settlements)]]. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:The first item, I have no objection to having an example, as long as that example has reasonable rational and context. To make an exception without this would create a loop hole and confusion. Having reasonable exceptions is something that is apart of all guidelines, and a lack of example in no way is an attempt to dispute that. If we have a reasonable example that is not misleading, then by all means include it. (this would not include the above example)
:The second item, as I noted when I "voted" that I had no strong preference. Others have also listed their names under both, which I take it is also an indication of no strong preference? The poll itself seems pretty split there. The second item sounds like a no consensus issue. -- [[User:Ned Scott|Ned Scott]] 23:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
:Including the suggested language that exceptions are possible implies that there currently exists some series which qualifies as such an exception. Barring Wikipedians being picked up for the 2007 season, there are no series I'm aware of that merit a common-sense exception (that includes Star Trek). In the rare and hypothetical event that a show doesn't fit into the guidelines and seems like it should be an exception, I believe that the guideline should be updated to address the particularities of the series and obviate the need for an exception.
:As for the [[Dalek]] article, that falls under the provisions of [[WP:D#Primary_topic]]. Clearly, [[Dalek (Doctor Who episode)]] needs the "episode" tag to differentiate it from [[Dalek]], but only because anything less would be ambiguous. [[:Category:Ninth_Doctor_episodes]] is a perfect example of the position I'm advocating, making proper use of all three possibilities: [[Dalek (Doctor Who episode)]] in the aforementioned case, (Doctor Who) when there are other articles unrelated to Doctor Who, and a plain title in general. -[[User:Anþony|Anþony]] 23:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
| 