This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. No prejudice against a new RM with "Unforgettable (U.S. TV series)" as the proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Unforgettable (2011 TV series) → Unforgettable (TV series) – Describing this series as "2011" is misleading and no longer accurate, as it has gone into multiple seasons (3). There are other TV series named "Unforgettable", however none with the exact name and with an English-speaking target audience. I do not anticipate this to particularly controversial, however due to an existing disambiguation page of the same name I am requesting input. Administrators, feel free to delete the existing disambiguation page and move this article if consensus is reached. Mamyles (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose apart from the non-English series Google Books results for "series Unforgettable" show there's also a notable 1981 series by Hadmor Productions that was the subject of significant trade union law case in the UK. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The majority of TV shows broadcast for a short period of time, and prefixing the release year works for those cases. However, I believe that there does come a certain point where encyclopedia readers identify a name with primarily one series or even word (an extreme example of which is Friends), but judging from the above comments it seems that may not yet be the case for this title. I personally believe that standard has been already met here. Mamyles (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Strong support The title should be changed to "Unforgettable (TV series)". As it stands it is simply incorrect, and as it stands the title makes the false implication that the series existed for only one season and was perhaps cancelled -- which is absolutely wrong and a huge error considering all the episodes that have been produced since then, and the work that has been done, and the fact that it is shooting now on the streets of New York at this moment as I write this, and it's 2014 and the series is expected to continue into the next year, and it very well may. Wikipedia is certainly able to handle multiple titles with its disambiguation page. When I first discovered this page it was with a bit of shock that Wikipedia would allow such an error to exist. As Timmyshin points out with a link (above) there are plenty of examples on Wikipedia to support this. Barklestork (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It is the standard disambiguation format for TV shows, and is the same as Dallas (1978 TV series) which lasted over a decade (ending 1991). So your point about this being wrong is not correct, as this is the format specified by WPNCTV. If you think this format is inappropriate, get the recommended Wikipedia format changed first. -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The person who signed in as number 18.104.22.168 (talk) is mistaken on a couple of points. First of all, it is a mischaracterization of WP:NCTV to suggest that one particular format is specified above all others, when, in fact, the page lists several format ideas. And, here is a quote from the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television): “This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming convention. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” And another quote: “Use the following when there are two or more television productions of the same name. Prefix the country of broadcast – (U.S. TV series) ...” There are of course exceptions, which would include Law & Order, which uses no parenthetical phrase. Here is a partial list of articles that use the phrase "(TV series)": M*A*S*H (TV series), Batman (TV series), Casualty (TV series), Dexter (TV series), Route 66 (TV series), Friday Night Lights (TV series), Adventures of Superman (TV series), Peyton Place (TV series), etc. And a partial list of those who use the phrase “(U.S. TV series)”: The Office (U.S. TV series), Eureka (U.S. TV series) MasterChef (U.S. TV series) Shameless (U.S. TV series), Survivor (U.S. TV series) Get Real (U.S. TV series) 20/20 (U.S. TV series) Good Vibes (U.S. TV series), In Treatment (U.S. TV series), Wide World of Sports (U.S. TV series), The Face (U.S. TV series), My Hero (U.S. TV series), Suspense (U.S. TV series), Resurrection (U.S. TV series), Generations (U.S. TV series), Deception (U.S. TV series). An editor is free to consider a title to be incorrect — based on common sense — without having to follow another’s unsupported suggestions about what to do about it. In fact, in the above quote, WP:NCTV states that common sense is best. Barklestork (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Your suggested title "(TV series)" is not supported by NCTV, as there is another TV series with this name, so is insufficient disambiguation, per NCTV. You said the current name is wrong, but it is a supported disambiguation format suggested by NCTV, so it is a correct format. If you think that format is wrong, then you need to change NCTV first, since NCTV does recommend such a form. The name "(U.S. TV series)" is not what you were supporting in your initial opinion. "(U.S. TV series)" is supported by NCTV as disambiguation, but it isn't the form asked for by the nominator, nor is it in your supporting opinion. Are you now changing your opinion to use "(U.S. TV series)" ? -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I strongly support the suggestion that the article on the ‘’Unforgettable’’ TV series be called “Unforgettable (TV series). It seems like a common sense solution, and the best solution for readers of Wikipedia who are looking for information. The page WP:NCTV encourages “common sense” solutions above everything else (“…it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.”) WP:NCTV supports a variety of naming formats. As is also stated there: “Most episodic television shows (both broadcast and cable) are typically produced under a single name, with each episode relating to the others in an understandable way. [examples are given] … When disambiguation is required, use (TV series), for example: The Middle (TV series), Revenge (TV series).” The way the title is currently expressed seems to give the impression that it is not a current series or that it existed only in 2011. This seems seems inaccurate, misleading, and needs to be corrected. WP’s various methods of disambiguation seem to be effective and seem to help readers of WP find what they’re looking for. The statement proposing this change (above) expressed it well. Barklestork (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That is not the common sense solution, since we have TWO TV series with the same name, "Unforgettable". Therefore "TV series" is insufficient to describe this TV series. And Per NCTV, it requires additional disambiguation, such as Unforgettable (U.S. TV series). Further, you seem to disagree with the recommendations of NCTV, since the current name is one of the formats recommeded by NCTV, so you should go ahead and get that changed. Per my Dallas (1978 TV series) example, many TV series use the current format. Unforgettable (Philippine TV series) clearly shows why the nominated suggestion is ambiguous. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Other than the Unforgettable TV series that is under discussion on this page, there is no other similarly titled show currently in production, and if you look at other factors, such as the length of the run, it also stands alone. If it’s a question of comparing the Unforgettable TV series that’s being discussed here with the Filipino TV show Unforgettable (2013 TV series), there are significant differences: The Filipino TV series is no longer in production, it premiered in 2013 and it concluded in 2013 — in accordance its article’s title. It was a good example of an afternoon soap opera broadcast in the Tagalog language with a limited run in the genre known as telenovela. It was replaced in its time slot by the TV series, Mga Basang Sisiw. The actors who were featured in the Filipino Unforgettable (2013 TV series) have all gone on and are filming other shows, for example, Kylie Padilla is now in Magpakailanman and Polo Ravales is now in Kambal Sirena, etc. Unforgettable (2013 TV series) was shot in the Philippines, and is described in an article in the Tagalog language Wikipedia (https://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unang_Pahina). The Unforgettable series that is discussed on this particular talk page, is currently in its third year of production. To consider what readers of Wikipedia are looking for it also can be said that this particular article is read by about 1800 readers on average every day so far this month, which is what the now concluded Filipino soap averaged per month. Wikipedia articles on TV shows from the Philippines often follow the name of the series with: (Philippine TV series) Such as Camera Café (Philippine TV series). WP:NCTV is silent regarding disambiguating between TV series that are in different languages, one of which is currently in production, while the other one is defunct. That makes this situation an exception, and the recommendation is to use common sense. The suggestion of adding the phrase (U.S. TV series), would misleadingly suggest that there is another TV series with that title filming in another country. There is not. If one were to come along, then WP can deal with it at that time. It is a common convention of Wikipedia to add the phrase “(TV series)”, as is done, for example in Friday Night Lights (TV series), Adventures of Superman (TV series), etc. It seems simple and reasonable, and it would be clear and not misleading to the person who is searching on Wikipedia. Barklestork (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM -- Wikipedia does not distinguish between currently in production and out of production. Indeed that is a highly unreasonable thing do to. NCTV clearly says that if two TV shows share the same name, and they do, you properly disambiguate them. The Filipino show is called "Unforgettable", clearly shown from the title card. "TV series" in now way indicates something currently in production, since most articles carrying "(TV series)" are out of production. We don't say "(out of production TV series)" anywhere in NCTV. "U.S." does not signify that the series in in productin or out of production either, it merely indicates it was/is produced in the U.S. -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Please check your facts; Wikipedia does indeed differentiate between things that are “in production” and things that are “out of production”. This occurs in a large number of articles on a large number of topics. In fact, there is a Wikipedia article that is devoted to a List of American television shows currently in production. The essay that is referenced immediately above, WP:RECENTISM, doesn’t say otherwise. “Recentism” according the article cited above, is writing that inflates the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in articles created on “flimsy, transient merits”. Which raises the question: why does an afternoon soap opera, that has nothing but the kind of “flimsy, transient” references that are planted in the celebrity press by press-agents, and that has apparently not been reviewed by any reliable source, merit an article in the first place? The answer is “recentism”. (According to whoever wrote that article, which is not presented as a guideline.) Which all seems well “off-topic”, I wouldn’t have brought it up, myself, but I'm glad to try to respond. Article titles like Dexter (TV series), Route 66 (TV series), Friday Night Lights (TV series), (and many more) clearly demonstrate a convention that is followed by Wikipedia. This way of titling an article is not forbidden, or wrong, or improper. It is simply a convention that is often used, and would apply in this case. Barklestork (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia does not distinguish such as part of disambiguation. The list you point out is specifically about in production, not a disambiguation point. The TV shows you point to, like "Dexter" is not in production, clearly showing that "TV series" is not for "in production" TV shows. WP:PRECISE "Friday Night Lights" does not distinguish between in production and out of production; there is no other TV series. Same for "Adventures of Superman". There's only one "Route 66" TV show article. There are two TV series named "Camera Cafe", it is not because the TV series is Philippine, such as can be illustrated by Filipino TV show Bora (TV series). Please stop referring to examples that are not analogous to this case. This case has a second TV series with the same name. If you refer to cases where there are no other TV series with the same name, then clearly you are not understanding what disambiguation is for. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
But that’s not what you said. I responded to what you said the first time, but you then changed your story, and try to claim I’m mistaken. That’s not a fair argument. Then you make a derogatory comment about my understanding or lack of understanding — based on this trickery you just concocted. I object to that. So, now you’ve shifted ground, and your new point is something that I don’t believe anyone would disagree with, (that is, when you say, “Wikipedia does not distinguish such as part of disambiguation”), yet you argue it at some length. Then on your next point, you argue that WP doesn’t allow for any other title format (when there are two series with the same title) except the one that happens to be your personal preference — that is absolutely untrue, because such titles that you try to claim are not allowed do indeed exist. Law & Order, Dynasty (TV series), The Six Wives of Henry VIII (TV series) are a few examples. And Route 66 (TV series), as well, because, Wikipedia does indeed refer to and disambiguate between different series with the name Route 66. Those titles I just mentioned, and those I mentioned earlier are not forbidden, or improper. They are simply expressed in one of the conventional ways that Wikipedia uses. They don’t happen to reflect your personal preference, and you seem to feel that it is: “Your way or the highway!” You refuse to recognize that Wikipedia doesn’t agree with you or that attitude. WP allows for a variety of ways to disambiguate, and it allows exceptions, and it allows decisions to be made based on common sense. You are mistaken to claim that WP:NCTV “requires” (to use your word) that your preferred titling format be used. In fact, you won’t find that “Your way or the highway!” idea expressed anywhere on the WP:NCTV page, where, in fact, and in spite of your insistence, it allows exceptions and common sense. You misquote me when you say that I think your preferred titling method is “wrong”. What I said is that it “seems” wrong to me, and that’s true, for the reasons I’ve stated before. When the ground starts shifting under the arguments in order to trick the other up, when derogatory comments about the other editor start to occur, it may be an admission that this discussion, between you and myself, has exhausted reasonable argument. Barklestork (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The context of my statement should have been clear, there is no shifting in my position. I thought that context of my statements would make what I was saying evident as to what it is concerned with (disambiguation of articles and currently in production series), since it was the only thing we were discussing. If you can't discern context, it's hard to have a conversation. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is all you're bringing up. I point to the guideline and what it says. It isn't "my way". "My way" would be significantly different. But it certainly seems that you don't accept the guideline as it is, so it should be you who should be requesting changes to it. -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.