Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)

Move TV seasons from parenthetical disambiguation to comma disambiguation

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

---

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

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

Oh I already tried that in 2020, the whole thing is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 17#Season naming convention (continued), but as far as I can tell, the general idea "don't fix what isn't broken", even if I agree that it's absolutely broken and against Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines. You are quite correct: if Mercury (mythology) concerns the concept called Mercury that is specifically from mythology, by the same rules, One Piece (season 20) would concern the concept called One Piece that is specifically from some "season 20", which makes zero sense. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Just adding a link to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 17#RFC: What should the naming convention for television season articles be? as well, to show the clear options given for commas. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support, despite the amount of work it will entail, because this would fix several confusing disambiguation-related problems at the same time (while introducing no new ones), and will better comply with policy (WP:NATURALDIS instructs us to use natural disambiguation or failing that then comma disambiguation styles before resorting to parenthetical; they are in top-bottom order for a reason, just like the WP:CRITERIA are). I'm not perturbed at all that a previous proposal vaguely similar to this (but in favor of colons) failed to gain consensus, since many changes take more than one proposal, and this one is has clearer rationales than the old one, and is much better aligned with our title practices (the colon style is almost exclusively used for articles split up for length into a series of regular segements, like "List of [whatevers]: A–M", etc., and even this is sometimes done with commas or parens instead today).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support, but calling the part between the parentheses "disambiguation" is incorrect. The article is on a specific season of a TV show, not different TV shows by the same name where "season x" is the way of differentiating them. Put another way, the season number is an integral part of the title. Because of this confusion, renaming them is absolutely the way to go. I actually think dropping all punctuation is the most natural, preferring "Shark Tank season 12" to both "Shark Tank, season 12" and "Shark Tank (season 12)". -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Unsure yet, but oppose the part of The Voice (Australian season 7) would become The Voice (Australia), season 7. The correct title would be The Voice (Australian TV series), season 7 per the actual article at The Voice (Australian TV series). We shouldn't make up different titles in the season articles. Additional note, if this proposal passes, please ping me as it requires module updates. Gonnym (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's a good point, but a minor one and probably shouldn't lead to a blanket "oppose"; this is something that could be tweaked in the proposed language easily.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't blanket oppose, I specifically wrote that I oppose only that part. Gonnym (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would argue that the "season 7" element makes it clear that this is a TV series, but I have no problem with following the primary topic title to the extent that these are an issue. BD2412 T 19:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yuk! Looks awful and not an improvement in any way. Solution in search of a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • The problem is that Wikipedia has long adopted the convention of using parentheticals to indicate actual ambiguity between topics. George Washington (trombonist) is a different person from George Washington, not an instance of the president being a trombonist. Seasons of the same TV series are not ambiguous to each other, as they are related. BD2412 T 16:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • That seems too subjective and insubstantial to be consensus-formation meaningful in any way, Necrothesp. The actual problems have been clearly identified, so claiming it's "in search of a problem" is clearly false.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
    • They may have been "identified", but that doesn't mean I have to agree that they're a problem! I don't. I have never, ever looked at this and thought, "oh dear, that's a problem"! All I can see here is a proposal to take something that looks perfectly good and works perfectly well and change it for the sake of it (and make it look awful). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

      Except problems with this have already been identified in this discussion, including issues with Wikidata, and how it does not conform with Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines, thus it does not "work perfectly well". Whether you consider it a problem because you haven't personally had to deal with it is is irrelevant; if it is a problem for anyone outside yourself, then it remains a problem. -- Alex_21 _TALK 19:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Question: Why a comma rather than, say, a colon (One Piece: Season 20) or nothing at all (The Simpsons Season 33 / The Simpsons season 33)? Both are also in usage in listings and reviews and commentaries. Just asking to really grasp all the particulars on it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support in principle because the current naming convention violates core disambiguation principles. However, I would prefer a colon over a comma, as the latter looks a bit ugly to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @TenTonParasol and King of Hearts: have you ever seen colons used in titles in Wikipedia other than to indicate formal subtitles, where the colon is part of the published name of the media? BD2412 T 16:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    There's technically an argument to be made that this is comparable to a subtitle or is arguably sometimes (often?) treated like one: The Crown: Season 3, Mad Men: Season 3 (in the where to buy), The Legend of Vox Machina: Season 2 review (though no punctuation in the body!), The Simpsons: Season 35 (page title up in the tab). Hence why I bring it up. The colons aren't even my preference, really.

    Personally, I think the comma into a lowercase looks extremely sloppy. Arguably, it's preferable to go "The Crown Season 3", no space, treat season like a proper noun—and arguably it's treated like one by many sources anyway in this context. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    I am not terribly opposed to no punctuation, since a season of a show is its own discrete entity. BD2412 T 18:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    I am terribly opposed to it, since its extremly confusing to anyone not already familar with what the article is about. And as for TonTonParasol's additional ideas, WP does not "treat [something] like a proper noun" if it isn't one, and we don't capitalize things unless they are capitalized in an overwhelming majority of RS ("many" doesn't cut it); see top of MOS:CAPS, and see also MOS:SIGCAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    Proper noun is the wrong phrase, used because I couldn't come up with a better one. I should've said "as arguable part of the title of the discrete entity that is the season". Press release for The Legend of Vox Machina has some interesting splits in it on that, one that AMC does not do in a Mad Men press release, but HBO capitalizes it throughout their official page for GoT as does Netflix. I don't actually feel very strongly about the capitalization, and "proper noun" is a slip on my part. I was attempting to observe that it is often considered part of the title of the concept of the season. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    To add, I agree with BD2412 stating above, though in a different context, that "season" would make it clear that this is a television series. I don't actually think it's likely that a reader will see "The Crown Season 3" or "The Simpsons season 34" and get confused about what the article is about, since that's how these things are referred to in common parlance anyway. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    That's just blindly assuming that the reader knows that The Crown is the title of a TV show. And season has mutiple meanings. There are lots of movies with "Season" in their titles, and if they have sequels they result in your preferred format for TV shows seasons; Open Season 2 is a real-world example that it only took me 15 seconds to find. So, this is provably confusing. I don't think "arguable part of the title of the discrete entity that is the season" really means anything concrete. And WP doesn't care what a couple of other websites prefer as their internal writing style – especially since they are in the business of selling access to these things as discrete "products", so they are inclined to view something like The Crown: Season 2 or The Crown, season 2 or whatever as a unitary name for an item of product, which has nothing to do with what WP is doing or thinking, or what our readers are for that matter. And the fact that people in the common parlance say aloud "The Crown season 2" has no implications of any kind for how we capitalize and punctuate, nor does how people write in social media, which is pretty much devoid of any semblance of typographic norms.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    I brought up common parlance per an idea that we can possibly expect readers broadly to be generally familiar with a 'title season number' construction. Most readers would probably parse "Loki season 2", "Loki: Season 2", "Loki - season 2", "Loki, Season 2", "Loki (season 2)", and "Season 2 of Loki" with equal comprehension. So, I don't think no separator would extremely confusing as a result. Common parlance offers no guidance as to which to pick, but it leads me to believe that they'd all be reasonably expected and understandable.

    Still, the argument does push me to find no punctuation with a lowercase preferable at this time. Functionally, it drops parentheses in most cases, "Loki season 2". Short descriptions and hatnotes further help readers confirm it's what they're looking for. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    An argument that a season identifier after the series title "is comparable to a subtitle" isn't "technical" in any way; it's just confusion as to what "subtitle" means. The fact that a few publications like to punctuate these things with a colon really has nothing to do with what it is, nor with what WP should use for our internal article-titling practices, especially when we have a need to distinguish between something like "Show Title, season 2" (specificity) and "Show Title (Country TV series)" (true disambiguation).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    I think you're trying to argue that "Loki season 2" is somehow more natural than "Loki, season 2" or "Loki: season 2" or "Loki (season 2)", but we have no evidence suggesting this, and if the principle were generalizable and demonstrable, we would not use comma, colon, or parenthetial disambiguation in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

    I'm just imagining what arguments may be made to go through the process of eliminating other solutions, and the colon is rather common in streaming listings, DVD listings, official website subsections, and publications, so I just wanted it addressed since it's a familiar convention. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    Probably more productive to let people raise objections if they have rationales for them rather than try to invent ones you don't hold but imagine that someone else might hold.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support in principle. Ranked preferences for format would be 1) no punctuation and lower case; 2) colon and lower case; 3) any of the other alternatives to parentheses suggested so far. older ≠ wiser 17:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support in principle, with a preference for no separator as that appears to be the most common approach in the (few) sources I spot-checked. I’d be open to another separator character if there were good source evidence for that usage, but if there’s no consensus amongst sources then simpler seems better. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with this, I vaguely recall noticing it a couple of times and being slightly confused at why we had parentheses there, it doesn't really seem to fit. I thought it might have been done to be useful for piping, in case an editor would just want to type something like "In 2023, Smith acted in [[Some Series (season 3)|]], ..." but it seems improbable because it doesn't scale beyond a single season, and if we mention an acting role beyond a list entry it's often going to be because it was multiple seasons, and besides, I don't know that we want to point an average reader reading a biography to a specific season with a pipe link anyway. --Joy (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support but with no punctuation, and lower case. And use full "country TV series) to disambig countries). Hyperbolick (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for the following reasons:
  1. It looks horrendous and messy. Call this an IDONTLIKEIT comment, but I do think readability is a valid concern when it comes to article titles.
  2. To say that comma-separated disambiguation is more natural than parenthetical disambiguation is false. WP:NCDAB lists the three forms of disambiguation as natural, comma-separated, and parenthetical. Comma-separated disambiguation is therefore no more natural or unnatural than parenthetical disambiguation.
  3. It is also inaccurate to say that parenthetical disambiguation disambiguate[s] different kinds of things sharing the same name while comma-separated disambiguation does not. "Berkshire" in Windsor, Berkshire describes the larger area which the article subject is situated in, while "Princess of Wales" Diana, Princess of Wales describes who/what the article subject is. That means a comma functions the same way as parentheses, as outlined at WP:NCDAB.
  4. Colons, not commas, are usually the go-to choice for indicating subtopics or "split" articles. See WP:NCSPLITLIST, for example. But in this case, a colon for season articles will only create complications for series whose titles already have a colon.
  5. The two comma-separated examples I listed above, Windsor, Berkshire and Diana, Princess of Wales, are constructions that are already commonly used outside of Wikipedia. Something like Loki, season 2, however, is not. If you look at sources online, sources usually go with Loki season 2 (the italics are sometimes swapped for quotation marks, depending on the source's style guide, and "season" is sometimes capitalized). Theoretically, that could work for us, but in my opinion that too looks messy and creates readibility issues.
  6. WP:ATWP:NCDAB is a guideline, not a policy. If there is no breach in policy, and the circumstances clearly warrant an WP:IAR situation, and parenthetical disambiguation has already been in place for a very long time, there is no reason for us to make such a drastic and meaningless change. WP:AINTBROKE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose or more specifically, allow comma use on a case-by-case basis. With several older programs, the nature of seasons really didn't matter, so calling something like, for example "Cheers, season 1" would not make any sense. There are programs that the season or series numbers does matter, namely something like Doctor Who where this comma usage would make sense, but that should not be established as a standard. --Masem (t) 03:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Huh? Doctor Who pre-dates Cheers by 19 years, so your "older programs" argument is completely backward. Why would Doctor Who, season 1 "make sense" but Cheers, season 1 "not make any sense"? What sense, to whom? This is so subjetive and odd that no, well, sense can be made of it as an argument. There doesn't appear to be anyone, anywhere for whom Cheers, season 1 does "not make any sense". It makes the perfect and obvious sense that it's about season 1 of Cheers, and given our disambiguation patterns, it makes much more sense than Cheers (season 1), which implies a type of thing called "season 1s" and a "Cheers" that happens to be one of those, just as Secretariat (horse) indicates an individual exemplar named "Secretariat" of a class of things called "horses". Your "doesn't make any sense" argument would seem to militate against even Cheers (season 1), anyway. And why shouldn't one pattern of the sort proposed here be "established as a standard", when WP:CONSISTENT policy clearly tells us to be consistent in our naming patterns, and we have WP:COMMADIS in the same policy placed higher than (i.e. preferable to) parenthetical disambiguation when the former is available. Just asserting that a standard shouldn't be established, without a rationale, isn't at all an argument against establishing a standard.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Cheers, season 1" is not a way that the show is referred to, because outside of a few instances of actors, the seasons of that show generally ran together. And for Doctor Who, it is more like Doctor Who (series 1) (not season!) that could benefit for being called "Doctor Who, series 1" since that itself is generally well encapsulated and referred to as that. Masem (t) 04:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  But Cheers, season 1 (punctuated however you like) is how that season of the show is referred to. We have an article on it, and it has sources. See also [1], including the first link where it is being official sold as season 1 of Cheers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Which is why my vote is "Case by Case", rather than trying to force one way or the other. Where it falls naturally to use commas, use them there; otherwise, where there is no major distinctions of seasons of a show, probably better to use paratheticals. Masem (t) 05:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  But there is no case where using a comma for this would be "unnatural"; it's just one of the several competing but common ways to write these things, and we should use one consistently instead of veer back and forth between conflicting styles for no reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with SMcCandlish, don't think this point about Cheers is particularly clear. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  There is also a Doctor Who (season 1). Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note: The 10 following WikiProjects and taskforces have been notified of this discussion: WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Anime and manga, the Arrowverse task force, WikiProject Disney, WikiProject Doctor Who, the Episode coverage task force, the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force, WikiProject Star Trek, WikiProject Star Wars, and WikiProject The Simpsons. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Leaning support for "X season Y" without colon or comma, I could accept comma but I think its best without. Either way the parentheses need to go, they create a mess for Wikidata.★Trekker (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Could you explain the issue with Wikidata? Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Wikidata doesn't (generally) allow brackets or disambiguators in labels, which means a lot of the time for season items people have to come in and manually fix all season labels and add descriptions for them to be useful otherwise all of them end up looking identical without descriptions, if we had a format without brackets all that work could be done by bots instead.★Trekker (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support X season Y; I usually just edit anime articles, so apologies if this argument is too centered around that, but using One Piece as an example, due to there being two TV series of the same nationality (One Piece (1999 TV series) and One Piece (2023 TV series)) the year is used as disambiguation. However, based on WP:TVSEASON, which states If there are multiple shows of the same name, include the disambiguation, similar to the above for TV series in the season description, means the season pages like One Piece (season 1) should be titled "One Piece (1999 TV series season 1)", which I think looks awkward, whereas "One Piece (1999 TV series) season 1" I think looks more appealing, though perhaps this is veering too much into WP:ILIKEIT territory. Link20XX (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The season number is not generally part of the name, for example Doctor Who season 1 and Doctor Who season 2 are technically both just called Doctor Who. That is why it is appropriate to include the season number in disambig parentheses, just like if we were talking about two different series called Doctor Who. If there was consensus for "Doctor Who (season 1)" breaking the normal disambig rules then it should be changed to "Doctor Who season 1", not "Doctor Who, season 1". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I'll just repeat what I wrote three years ago: "The parenthetical disambiguation for season articles never made any sense to me. Grammatically, the parentheses in my view emphasize the series itself and make the season seem like an afterthought, whereas the article is actually about the season. Sure, 'it ain't broke,' but no one has pointed out a downside to improving this naming convention." -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll be the one: parentheses are much cleaner, as they clearly distinguish the season number from the show title. Removing parentheses would mean everything is jumbled together in a confusing manner, and readers may need to read an article title twice before catching on. I can foresee problems especially with shows with longer titles. And with any major change comes a massive headache. First there's the cleanup effort. This will likely be done using bots/AWB, but it is still a massive task that requires substantial planning — for example, what to do with unusual/tricky cases — and will cause significant disruption. By disruption I mean (1) everyone's watchlists will be inundated with page moves, (2) editors unaware of this non-RfC will be bewildered, and we all saw what happened with the Vector 2022 rollout, and (3) editors will need to be retrained. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Cleaner" is an opinion that I disagree with, but it also ignores my (and other editors') point that the article is about the season, not the show, so the subject should be emphasized. Parentheticals are usually used to disambiguate subjects with the same name– that's not the case here, since the seasons are the focal point– User:BD2412's example about George Washington is exactly right. The page moves point is not a big concern. Four years ago we changed every "U.S. TV series" and "UK TV series" to "American" and "British," respectively – the moves happened smoothly and no one's thinking about the logistics of that any longer. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Parentheticals are usually used to disambiguate subjects with the same name but not always. We have articles like Timeline of World War II (1939). This is a convention, not a rule. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support As the above mentions, this was brought up three years ago (started by myself, nonetheless), and I still support such a change. The format specifically, I have no issues with, whether it's a comma or no separation between show and season I agree with both, but we need to get rid of the parentheses. To paraphrase my quote above, The Flash (2014 TV series) is titled as such because The Flash is a 2014 TV series, and by following that line of thought, The Flash (season 1) would be titled as such because The Flash is a "season 1". If that were the case, the lead should state "The Flash is the first season of the American television series The Flash", but it is rather a subset of a wider project. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support I prefer no comma here, since "The Simpsons, season 8 episodes" is awkward compared to "The Simpsons season 8 episodes" and the current Category:The Simpsons (season 8) episodes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose – I understand the general principle, but I don't think the benefit of switching to commas is worth the work needed to make the changes. (I also personally find the commas awkward but I understand if people want to ignore that argument.) If we really wanted to make a change, we could go with "Season X (Show)" – this would be more in line with disambiguation norms and it would enable the pipe trick when people want to link to season articles, but that's a much different idea than what is being proposed here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I ran a quick search for "(season" and "(series" in all mainspace titles and got a slightly different count of the number of moves needed – 11,187 and 3,298, respectively. I did it quickly so it may not be a perfect search, just wanted to compare to the original count of 6,334. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  The leading proposal at this time is to have no punctuation at all, which I am fine with. That treats the article subject, e.g. "Blue Bloods season 8", as a thing in itself. As for the number of pages affected, I obtained that from the number of articles in the TV seasons category tree. When we made the decision to disambiguate the title New York, I personally made about 80,000 fixes within the span of a few weeks, but this would be done by a bot, so nearly automatic. BD2412 T 19:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  The no-comma option requires the same work, and just because a bot does it doesn't mean it isn't disruptive to some degree. And the no-comma option still feels a little awkward to me since I don't often see "Show season X" as a single phrase in writing ("Season X of Show" is more common in writing but that seems like a poor title – hence my personal suggestion, even if nobody else supports it). RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  By that measure, every edit made to Wikipedia is "disruptive to some degree". BD2412 T 18:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  I have to wholeheartedly agree with the no-comma option still feels a little awkward to me since I don't often see "Show season X" as a single phrase in writing. This no-punctuation idea is a case of WP editors trying to make up their own fake style out of nowhere, against independent reliable source usage, which is something that consensus has been against for a very long time. Sources are not consistent on one style (commas, colons, hyphens or dashes, brackets of various sorts), but they are consistent in hardly ever using the confusing "Show season X" style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding the Wikidata argument, we should not be using Wikidata to determine article titles. Wikidata isn't reader-facing. The world doesn't revolve around Wikidata; Wikidata should be the one that accommodates Wikipedia article titles. The primary concern that we should be focusing on is which of the following is easier on readers' eyes: The Suite Life of Zack & Cody (season 2) or The Suite Life of Zack & Cody season 2; Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 17) or Law & Order: Special Victims Unit season 17. Keep in mind that italics don't show on search results, autocomplete, categories, or Google Search. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  If that's the criterion you want, then I would still go for "The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, season 2" and "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, season 17", since it separates the title from the season, but is less visually disruptive than parentheses, and the comma-separated season won't be suppressed the way parenthetical everything is hidden by various tools, including Google previews and our own built-in hovercards.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  On what grounds, other than to accommodate Wikidata? There are no PAGs that govern how we name "subtopic" articles, nor is there a PAG that says parentheses may only be used for disambiguation. Accordingly, MOS:VAR tells us to defer to the status quo and keep doing what we have been doing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  I just told you on what grounds. Repeat: since it separates the title from the season, but is less visually disruptive than parentheses, and the comma-separated season won't be suppressed the way parenthetical everything is hidden by various tools, including Google previews and our own built-in hovercards. WP:COMMONSENSE exists for a reason. Not everthing has to come down to "Do you have a rule to thump?" Cf. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:WIKILAWYER. Any time someone is opposing something that clearly makes sense just because there isn't a rule that mandates it, they are making a mistake. And MOS:VAR is about in-article content; it has nothing to do with article titles. These season strings are effectively serving as a form of topical disambiguation (between other articles on seasons/series of the same show), and WP:AT policy specifies a preferential order of such formats: natural disambiguation (which doesn't really apply here; there is nothing "natural" about running the show title against the season designator, and this style is poorly attested in sources; see also note about NCPSPLITLIST below); comma-separated; parenthetical; and descriptive (i.e. a phrase made up by Wikipedians for a subject that doesn't really have a common name), in that order. Comma trumps parenthetical. On the other hand, WP:NCSPLITLIST guideline (and an argument can be made that these season articles are like unto a split list of episodes) suggests colon as preferable, and comma as an alternative. So, there is no "one true rule" to thump here, though it is important that both of these pages accept commas as the method. The first does not accept colons, and the latter accepts parenthetical only a third choice. Maybe more to the point, the "use no punctuation" option is specifically "deprecated as ambiguous, hard to read", with various unpunctuated examples shown (along with examples that are otherwise problematic, e.g. for being reundantly longwinded, which aren't relevant to this discussion).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  (SMcCandlish, duplicate signature removed.) You don't need "a rule to thump" to enact a change. But without invoking PAGs, this discussion is essentially a battle between ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT. That is never a good reason to delete an article, and that is certainly not a good reason to rename thousands of articles. Those !voting support are citing two contradictory arguments at once: one group claims that parentheses should only be used for disambiguation, and since (TV series) is not a form of disambiguation, we should use commas instead; the other group claims (TV series) is a form of disambiguation, but comma-separated disambiguation should be used instead because it is superior. Both arguments are flawed: for those saying parentheses can only be used for disambiguation, I have pointed out that no PAGs support this claim, and in any case, their argument can be extended to commas as well; for those saying comma-separated disambiguation is a superior form of disambiguation, it makes sense to use commas for subjects like place names and regnal titles, where such a construction is commonplace outside of Wikipedia, but no one uses commas for TV seasons, including sources. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Nah. The fact that mutiple arguments exist against something and are not entirely in synch with each other doesn't make them both invalid. It simply means people oppose your preference for mutiple reasons. And I haven't seen anyone in here ever say "parentheses should only be used for disambiguation", so that seems to be a straw man; rather, the argument is that it looks like (i.e., is by readers confusable with) disambiguation, since our main disambiguation technique is parenthetical (because "natural" and comma styles tend not to really exist for most topics), and for the kind of case here we have alternatives to use anyway. The other argument you don't like is that if one wants to interpret this is a form of disambiguation, then we should use comma style, since it is preferred when available over parenthetical, and it is available since some sources do use it, and it is not confusing in any way. These arguments really don't have anything to do with each other, but both of them are independent and severable reasonable arguments to avoid "Foo (season X)" style titles. "no one uses commas for TV seasons, including sources" isn't actually true; the style is rare in the entertainment press but so is parenthetical, which verges on non-existent. In trawling through Google News searches on various TV-show titles followed by the word "season", the vast majority confusingly use no puctuation or other separation at all, quite a few put the show name in quotation marks (which WP doesn't and never will), fewer use italics, but WP can't do that in a title, a few less use a pipe | symbol which can't work in a WP article title, and a few less again use a dash or hyphen which WP could do, but which I don't see anyone proposing (though using a dash would be sactioned by WP:NCSPLITLIST), and even fewer use a colon (which would be a poor choice here because some many show titles include their own internal colon, as in Star Trek: Discovery). Commas are even less common, and parentheses (round brackets) least common of all. So, at this point, I would support using an end dash first and a comma as second choice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  And now en dashes have entered the mix... We should not be using commas (or any unconventional method of disambiguation) unless many sources do so as well. If we were to use comma-separated disambiguation whenever possible, even when virtually no one else does, most of our articles would be comma-disambiguated rather than parenthetically. For example, job titles (e.g. Chris Evans (actor)) and locations (e.g. Glacier National Park (U.S.)) can easily be preceded by a comma rather than parentheses, but this is not the case. Since sources do not agree on which styling to use (meaning, there is no overwhelmingly common way to disambiguate), and very few use commas, the default should be parentheses. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  But why would we prefer parens when they are not more common (at least as uncommon a commas) in the source material than either colons or en dashes?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Because it is the standard on Wikipedia if natural and comma-separated disambiguation are virtually non-existent. To change this norm would require a complete overhaul of WP:NCDAB, and most parenthetically disambiguated articles would have to be moved. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I guess that's reasonable from a "this is disambigution" perspective, but there is denial throughout this thread that it is in fact disambiguation, rather than being a form of split list, for which both en dash and colon are permitted in the titles (in that order of preferences).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  An earlier comment of yours seemed to suggest that you were on the "this-is-disambiguation" camp, which is why I tailored my response to that argument. As I wrote several comments above, the two contradictory arguments are making this discussion confusing. If we were to look at things from a "not-disambiguation" perspective, then the argument "parentheses look like disambiguation, so we should use commas" makes no sense. Commas are literally one of the two other forms of disambiguation described at WP:NCDAB. "It looks nicer/cleaner/prettier/less visually disruptive" (whatever that means) is an ILIKEIT argument and not a compelling reason to move — again, I'll reiterate — thousands of articles and probably tens of thousands of incoming links. Again, we don't need a "rule to thump", but if it comes down to ILIKEIT vs. IDONTLIKEIT, then we would need a highly compelling reason that demonstrates substantial improvement to and benefit for readers. Those in favor of changing the naming convention have yet to provide evidence that the current convention has been actively harmful to readers, only that it causes behind-the-scenes problems off-wiki. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Confusing: just how it goes sometimes; if people aren't all conceptualizing this the same way, we can't make then do it, and have little choice but to juggle mutiple arguments. I think the "looks like disambiguation" points boils down to 'It looks like it means, in "Foo (season 1)", that "Foo" is a type of "season 1" and that "seasons 1" or "season 1s" are an encyclopedic category; meanwhile "Foo, season 1" more clearly implies a "season 1" subset of "Foo".' It's less likely to be mis-parsed than no punctuation at all, though either an en dash or a colon would serve the same purpose, with the former being better because so many shows already have an internal colon in their titles. A fair number of show titles have commas, too, but nearly none have dashes, so the dash really ought to be preferable (except to those who insist this is a form of disambiguation and not a form of split list, since dashes or colons aren't recognized for DAB purposes, though this is maybe really a trivial historical oversight and not a real principle based in anything – it's weird that DAB and LONGLIST neither mirror each other nor have mutually exclusive onventions, but instead just partially overlap). Arguments about implication and parseablily aren't just ILIKEIT, though they may not be compelling to everyone. If there's an additional argument about "behind-the-scenes problems off-wiki" maybe that also counts for something, but perhaps not much.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support a change from parentheticals, with preferences in the following order: "The Simpsons season 8" (no punctuation), "The Simpsons: season 8" (colon), "The Simpsons, season 8" (comma).
  Parentheticals are not in common usage by other sources and not consistent with the meaning on Wikipedia: One Day at a Time (2017 TV series) is a subject called One Day at a Time that is a 2017 TV series, whereas "The Simpsons (season 8)" isn't a subject called The Simpsons that is a season 8. — Bilorv (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support While I like the parentheses, that seem to be the arguement of many of the people in opposition. The seasons of a TV show are not separate entities they are part of the shows. The parenthases are used to disambiguate pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlifanofmrTennant (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Monarch TV series

Monarch (TV series) currently redirects to Monarch: Legacy of Monsters, an American series, while we also have Monarch (American TV series). Should the first link be a disambiguation page, and should the third link be moved to a better disambiguation? -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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

I'd have no issues with that, thanks for clarifying those details. Monarch (TV series) has no active mainspace links that would require updating, so if nobody else raises an issue with it, I'll move Monarch (American TV series) to Monarch (TV series) later and add the hatnote. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multiple Season 1's of a show

There seems to be a naming issue with it comes to Doctor Who, and editors that are not aware of naming guidelines and policies are already jumping on board the issue. For those who don't keep track of the show: The original era of the show used Season 1 to 26 from 1963 to 1989, then this reset with its return from hiatus in 2005 to Series 1, through to Series 13 in 2022. The original revival showrunner from 2005-2010 has returned with the upcoming season of Doctor Who, and has deemed the upcoming series as a newly "Season 1", instead of continuing on from the current numbering scheme. Multiple sources corroborate this, as does the original network, and this is why there are attempts to rename the article (or at least discuss it).

Now this might be too early to actually discuss, but if some form of discussion is held, that determines that Doctor Who (series 14) should be moved to a "Season 1" title, despite Doctor Who (season 1) existing, how would NCTV support the disambiguation between the 1963 season 1, and the 2024 season 1, given that they're not new seasons of different revivals but it's all still technically part of the same show? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably something like Doctor Who (season 1, 2023) (though if any change to the naming convention above passes, I guess the disambiguation would be much cleaner Doctor Who season 1 (2023)) Gonnym (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Given further updates, I've started an RFC at Talk:Doctor Who (series 14)#RFC: Title of this article, and following seasons. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Move/rename discussion for Critical Role campaign articles

A series of articles which may be of interest to members of this project—Critical Role (campaign one), Critical Role (campaign two), and Critical Role (campaign three)—has been proposed for renaming. If you are interested, please participate in the move discussion. Thank you. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles

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

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

The options are:

Options

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

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

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

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

Survey

• 1 - as it is the most visually pleasing. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• 1 > 3 > 4 > 2. Some kind of punctuation that separates the series title (and any disambiguation it has) from the season designator is needed, especially if in British cases we might be using things like "series 2" instead of "season 2".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  Followup after additional research: A) There's been some debate about whether this is a form of disambiguation or a form of split long list, and the general conclusion is that it's the latter - "Soap (season 2)", in the original format, is not something named Soap that is an example of a season 2, but is part of a series of lists of episodes divided by season. Therefore, WP:Naming conventions (lists) applies, and it requires punctuation of one kind or another between main subject and sub-list identifier: Deprecated as ambiguous, hard to read ...: "List of foos A–K". The closer will thus need to weight more dubiously the arguments for option 2 (no punctuation) since they are against an established and applicable guideline but are based on aesthetic/simplicity preferences not any WP:IAR need to ignore a rule to objectively improve the encyclopedia.

  B) Arguments for option 2 are also not accounting for accessibilty concerns: screen readers ignore italics, while at least some of them either announce uncommon punctuation like dashes and colons or simply pause at them as they do with commas, both behaviors being sufficiently helpful to the blind (a few will ignore them entirely, though this is generally considered a bug, and is likely to improve in the future). Thus, some form of punctuation helps many and hurts none.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thus, some form of punctuation helps many and hurts none. So, are you saying you would prefer the status quo over Option 2? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Would have to think about it more. Both formats are distinctly unhelpful but in unrelated ways, and it would come down to personally, subjectively weighing which is slightly less "reader-hateful" than the other. I might lean a hair toward status quo on that point, but I lean away from it in not wanting to join the dubious bandwagon of claiming there was no consensus ("rough" or otherwise) reached to deprecate that option in the previous round. And Graham87's observation below (even if personal/anecdotal) tends to discount the accessibility factor (B) as being particularly dispositive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm a screen reader user who has it set to say *fewer* punctuation marks than it would by default, so I don't mind what happens here. Either way it should usually be obvious from context. Graham87 (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Noted!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• 2 > 3 > 1 > status quo per my comment in the last RfC. Italics separate the title from the season designator (and parentheticals from any disambiguation). — Bilorv (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2 > 1 > 3 Punctuation is stylistically and grammatically unnecessary. I'm not sure how we could determine which is used more in RSes, but my guess is that usage likely comes down to style guides. To respond to points made about disambiguation in the previous discussion: season X is not a disambiguator for TV Series because there is nothing ambiguous about TV series season X. Rather, TV Series season X is a fork of TV Series. If there is consensus for punctuation, I prefer a comma over a colon because it looks cleaner. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2 > 1 > 3 per Voorts. I proposed comma disambiguation in the previous discussion that led to this RfC, and on the arguments there I am persuaded that no punctuation is equally correct, given that the "thing" being described in the article is the season as an instance in itself, rather than the season as an instance of another thing. I think this is particularly clear in the cases with the Example B and C parenthetical disambiguators incorporated into the title. BD2412 T 00:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• 1 – The more I think about my originally half-sarcastic alternative, the more I find myself pulled towards it, but I don't think it's worth complicating the argument further. If this is going to happen, commas seem reasonable to me; the other options just feel a bit awkward (no punctuation could be confusing when italics are not present, i.e., in search results, and colons resemble subpages too much to me). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2 > 1 > 3. In my opinion, 1 and especially 3 seem contrived and incongruent with common English language usage. I don't see a strong need to make the word "season" any more distinct than it would be in any other compound phrase, but if there is, italics seem sufficient. ― novov (t c) 04:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• 1 > 2 > 3. (Found this discussion through VPP.) Of these three formats, the colon is the only one I actively dislike; it feels awkward and not aligned with how people handle this type of clarification in day-to-day usage (i.e., as opposed to when establishing official titles/subtitles). In my opinion, the comma slightly beats the no-punctuation format because I think it's more clear about where the show title ends. However, it's a relatively marginal improvement in clarity, so I wouldn't be unhappy with Option 2 either. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
• Keep the status quo The only argument that has been raised in favor of changing the current method is that it looks nicer/prettier/cleaner, a subjective non-policy-based IDONTLIKEIT argument that is not a good reason to rename thousands of articles and update thousands of incoming links. The current method is clean enough; clearly separates the show title from the season number; is just as "uncommonly used in sources" as the other punctuation proposed, although that is irrelevant as Wikipedia does not follow other publications' style guides; does not cause confusion as to whether the parentheses are part of the title, since they are rarely found in show titles, unlike colons and commas; and has no contradiction with WP:AT, WP:NCDAB, or other naming conventions. The other !voters are reminded that they are not limited to the three options presented and can !vote "do nothing". InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

  There is already a determination of consensus to move away from the status quo. Do you have a preference among the options presented in this discussion? BD2412 T 13:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  "Do nothing" is always an option in an RfC (or similar processes) — and "rough consensus" is a weak rationale to make such a major change. As I noted, there still has yet to be an argument put forth for moving away from parentheses aside from subjective opinions about which looks better. But I will say that it should absolutely not be #3, dashes, or any other unconventional punctuation, since that will almost certainlt cause confusion with show names with colons or dashes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• 2 > 3 > dashes. I'd like to lean toward the formatting that the majority/plurality of sources use if possible, so I conducted a bunch of searches for seasons of TV shows in various genres. My super scientific results shows no punctuation being favored, followed by colons and dashes (seemed roughly equal), then parentheses. Surprisingly, I could not find instances of using commas (even when using commas to search). I disregarded instances of "season x of Show". Because it came up, I do explicitly oppose the status quo because it is confused for and interferes with actual disambiguation (no, "season 1" is not disambiguation so don't call option 1 "comma disambiguation"). Therefore, it creates false positives at maintenance categories like this one. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2, dash, 3, 1. I've made my comments at the previous RfC and other comments above preferring 2 first have already covered my position. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2 and only 2 – because otherwise you'll have the very non-grammatical "For All Mankind, season 2 sees the characters..." and then we'll be debating whether we have to set off the "season X" tag in commas like: "For All Mankind, season 2, sees the characters..." I mean yes we could reword as "The second season of For All Mankind sees the characters..." but that won't be done consistently, especially in the lead where people LOVE to have the exact article title bolded appearing... (similar terrible mangling of English happens with the colon) so yes, if we are doing away with the parenthetical disambiguation, let's make things as "natural" (as in, unadorned) as possible so that the article title can be easily used in-text without contortions. Any other choice is either as "bad" as parenthetical disambiguation or worse. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• 1 > 2 three is just a bad idea as it indicates a subtitle. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2 and only 2, since that's how most reliable sources refer to shows with multiple seasons. Oppose Option 3, since the colon makes it seem like "season" is a part of the show's official title/name, which it is not (and renaming The Challenge: All Stars (season 3) to The Challenge: All Stars: season 3 looks ridiculous). Some1 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2. Simpler is better. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2 per Joeyconnick. —El Millo (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• Very weak support for only 2, though partially inclined to keeping the status quo per InfiniteNexus and the fact that the closing note of the previous RfC stated There appears to be a rough consensus, not exactly a rousing indication of strong support for such a change. But if a change happens, which again I'm not fully sure I support at this time, it should only be 2. There should be no punctation to indicate a season in the article's title. Joeyconnick laid out a good explanation above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 - I will still say that moving away from the status quo (parens only) is best, but given that option seems to be off the table from the prior RFC, using either spaces or colons would match how other multipart works are named on WP and in the real world (eg Dune: Part Two or Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One). I feel the space version is more natural, but I also can see the colon version. Option 1 seems to be more original research in how seasons are named. --Masem (t) 00:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Just wanted to point out that Dune: Part Two and Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One are the official titles of the movies; the use of the colons there aren't comparable to TV seasons. Some1 (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but we're talking about creating titles that don't normally exist in reliable sources for these TV series, so we're doing some type of original research (necessary to build the encyclopedia so acceptable) and in that frame it is best to stick to how other works indicate multipart volumes and use a format that is comparable as to minimize this amount of minimal research. This is why the comma form is weird as that's something make work in a grammatical fashion, but not at all common in other media forms. Masem (t) 01:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Masem: It's not as though sources never refer to shows by their season in a comparable way. E.g., "MCU Theory Explains Why Loki Was Strong Enough To Save The Multiverse In The Loki Season 2 Finale", stating "Loki's ability to save the entire multiverse in Loki season 2 was one of the biggest and most satisfying revelations of the Multiverse Saga"; "Blue Bloods Season 9 Streaming: Watch & Stream Online via Hulu & Paramount Plus", stating: "Curious about where to watch Blue Bloods Season 9 online?"; "'The Voice' Season 20 Results: Who Won the Knockout Rounds and Made the Live Shows?", stating: "The Voice season 20 is headed for the live shows!"); "Where Was Young Sheldon's Paige In The Big Bang Theory?", stating: "there's no guarantee that the shortened Young Sheldon season 7 will bring her back" and "The Big Bang Theory season 12 found a way to bring in Tam, Sheldon's first friend". BD2412 T 03:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Which is why I can support 2, because that's the effective format used in RS writing. 2 doesn't create an option that is not used routinely in RSes (as it would be for option 1 using the comma). Masem (t) 05:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  "creating titles that don't normally exist in reliable sources for these TV series" would be adding random punctuation (commas, colons, dashes, etc.) in the titles. 2 (using the space) is what reliable sources most commonly use for the TV series with multiple seasons. Some1 (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• 2 per above, but I would change the disambiguation from "Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series) season 3" to "Dancing with the Stars season 3 (South Korean TV series)".   Tentinator   02:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• 1. So for British shows the title is going to be Survivor (British TV series) series 3? This looks a little crazy... so I am in favour of a comma. Heartfox (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• My ranked-choice would be status quo, 1, 2, 3. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2 as adding a comma or colon would be Wikipedia adding punctuation that is not consistently used by sources. Having the series name in italics and the "season X" unitalicised is clear enough a distinction without us needing to manufacture one. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• My preference would be 2 or status quo rather than 1 or 3. S5A-0043^Talk 14:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• The arguments for 2 have convinced me, so 2 is now my preference, but 1 still seems like a fine alternative as the italics help differentiate. But 2 is the seeming consensus, and that option is definitely better than the status quo. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• 2 and only 2. Only one reflecting real world use. Some observations:
  • User:RunningTiger123 has concerns for "when italics are not present, i.e., in search results. Ideal world, italics would be present in search results. In our less than ideal world, lots of things look wonky in search results, but maybe not so much as to tip scales as to how things in more prominent spaces ought look.
  • User:InfiniteNexus has concerns for "series that already have that punctuation" — not well solved by instead adding two additional punctuation elements (a ( and a )). Should we have instead "Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) (season 10)"? Guessing "Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series season 10)" to avoid adding a dreaded comma. But that makes the part within parentheses all the more confusing. Heaven forbid somebody should make articles on the individual seasons of Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) (2000 TV series).
  • User:Heartfox and User:Tentinator kind of cancel each other out. Heartfox is concerned that "Survivor (British TV series) series 3" looks "a little crazy", but Tentinator is the most correct: if the season is the reason and the summum bonum of the page, then all of these ought to be titled as "Hawaii Five-0 season 10 (2010 TV series)", "Dancing with the Stars season 3 (South Korean TV series)", and such. And here User:OlifanofmrTennant is spot on as well. Vast majority of shows have no such problem. Start with what looks best -- and reflects real world use -- for the vast majority. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  Quick comment about my concern: what would be a "more prominent" space than search results? I agree it's not necessarily enough to swing the decision on its own, but I also don't think search results should be entirely ignored when a significant portion of traffic comes via search (either the internal Wikipedia search or external search engines). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• 2 is the most elegant solution. The extra punctuation isn't necessary to express the idea; all three examples in the "2" row are perfectly comprehensible. Toughpigs (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• 2 I thought I would like 1, but after reading the discussion, 2 is the only option that works in all situations. 3 makes it seem that the season is part of the official name. --Enos733 (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Anything other than option 2, which has no sensible separation between title and season (or series, for British readers) MapReader (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • The sensible separation is the continued italics of the show title and roman (regular) type for the season/British series. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• 4 (in line with sports articles like 2023 French Open – Women's singles, Gymnastics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's artistic individual all-around, etc.) > 1 > 3 > 2 (somewhat awkward), anything but completely inconsistent status quo. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Opposed - We use parentheses for disambiguation on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles. (Look at the top of this page, it's even done here.) This WP:LOCALCON probably shouldn't change that. And in this case, it is the clearest and reduces confusion and ambiguity. Which, incidentally, is the title of the relevant guideline, as noted. If the closer doesn't closer per existing guidelines, and instead closes as some sort of no consensus for the status quo, then some sort of punctuation (4>3>1). Oppose merely having a space, due to lack of clarity. - jc37 04:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  See discussion below about whether (and why probably not) this constitutes disambiguation. And the "(television)" in this page's name isn't disambiguation at all, it's topic identification that is coincidentally using a parenthetical form (topical SNGs also do this, while MoS topical pages do not; we should probably normalize to the "/" style used by the MoS pages so it's clearer they are not disambiguations).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• 2 - I think others have made convincing arguments that for WP:CONCISE and clarity, we should not insert extraneous punctuation. -- Netoholic @ 14:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• 2 > 3 > 1. I dislike dashes in titles as there seems to be perpetual churn around the type of dash which is confusing for those not steeped in typographical arcana. Parentheses is just wrong. older ≠ wiser 15:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• 2 Supporting all reasonings provided previously, but also based on existing episode articles examples, such as "Glorious Purpose" (Loki season 1), "Episode 1" (Humans series 1) and "Episode 1" (Fleabag series 2); each of these are episode titles "Glorious Purpose" and "Episode 1" that belong to Loki season 1, Humans series 1 and Fleabag series 2 respectively – this is disambiguation used properly. (List of Skins episodes is another article that uses this example a multitude of times.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Um, existing episode-article examples are not of any relevance, since this is entirely about changing from that existing format (a consensus to make that change already being established) to another format (the consensus for which exactly is what this RfC will establish).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  It shows there's already a clearly set standard for what we're wanting to move towards. Whatever the result of this RFC, those episode articles have no reason to change, as this RFC only concerns the naming of the season articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  I've been wondering if prehaps single brackets [season 12], might be a solution, if the concern is redundant parentheticals. But I'm not sure that that's that's where this train (or potential trainwreck) is wanted to be headed. - jc37 15:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  How will the parenthetical standard [...] increase ambiguity? If you see an article titled Loki season 1, are there any other articles concerning Loki season 1 that the article would be ambiguous to? How would the title of that article be ambiguous? -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, there are some notable shows (with multiple seasons) that have counterparts in other countries (or just other unrelated shows with the same name). We seem to be angling for "Show Title (disambiguator) • season #", where "•" is either a space alone or some form of punctuation (dash, colon, comma, spaced as appropriate for that puncutation mark). Jc37: I get what you mean by "disambiguation" in the looser sense now. I agree with "if it's merely a space, I think it can [increase ambiguity]"; this would even apply to the internal pages that are using parentheses (or sometimes now slashes instead) as quasi-disambiguatory punctuation; it would not be good for us to have "Wikipedia:Naming conventions television" or "Wikipedia:Manual of Style television" (that said, the "/" style is also effectively banned by WP:LONGLIST in mainspace).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. To my eye it's a weak to no consensus in the RFC above so I'd argue this rfc is jumping the gun in building a consensus around a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. However, if pushed to build a consensus in this discussion, lean to option 1 but suggest 2 is out in front and I can live with it until the next time. Hiding T 12:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • This RfC is not dependent on the previous discussion, though. It could have been initiated more or less as is even if no prior discussion had occurred. BD2412 T 04:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
    • We're ducking down a side alley that's not productive but forgive me, you're being disingenuous. It is framed as being dependent on the previous discussion and looks to build on a rough consensus believed to be established in that prior discussion and takes place in a world where that prior discussion happened. If it had been initiated in a situation where no prior discussion had occurred we would be having a different discussion. The knowledge of the previous discussion informs this debate, and can't be disregarded. You yourself have referred to the previous discussion and believed consensus contained within, so it must be of importance. A number of the opposers have engaged and offered opinions and referred to the prior debate. The only person to oppose above and not comment is User:Necrothesp as far as I can see, so there is consensus building being engaged here. I have made my comment in a consensus building effort but believe it's important and instructive to show how we build that consensus. I can't know who will read these words, but I want to show them what I think and also why I think it, and also what has happened. It's a good debating technique to pretend something hasn't happened, but that doesn't change the fact that it did happen. But like I say, side-alley, I don't see this line worth the time if I'm honest. Far better to agree the previous debate happened, surely? A good closer will evaluate my comment and understand it in terms of building a consensus. Hiding T 07:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Forgive my cynicism, but comments merely denigrating the previous close appear to imply that the clear and overwhelming majority of participants in this discussion who support a change from the status quo should be ignored by the closer of this discussion, in favor of some kind of supervote. No one here has been fooled into voting for the change proposed. BD2412 T 14:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

        • Cynicism is fine, probably mirrors mine and I don't think we're far apart in where we're coming from, which is opposite sides attempting to find a middle. Like I say, four of the previous participants have contributed here so the consensus above has evolved. It's working how it's supposed to work, by continuing discussion. Hiding T 11:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

      • Note: my irritation is not so much towards you as towards various other frankly disrespectful comments made in this discussion, hinting that the closer should treat highly experienced editors like a bunch of rubes to be disregarded. It is an exercise in well-poisoning. BD2412 T 00:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

        • I'm not intending to well-poison, I hope that's clear. To my eye the consensus seems to be forming around 2, and as I say, I hate it but can live with it in terms of a consensus position, and if that's where consensus lands, so be it and I can see it. If others in the debate can indicate what they can live with, that will help. It's an MOS issue at the end of the day, it's something we have to somehow approach somewhat consensually, I've been through enough MOS debates to come to understand we need some sort of style. Hiding T 11:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• While in this case I do support moving away from the status quo, I agree with the procedural objections above that it is invalid to claim that there is consensus to move away from the status quo. For example, there is often consensus that Sarah Jane Brown is a bad title (i.e. a supermajority prefer something other than that as their first choice), but unless an alternative title gains more popularity than the status quo, the article should remain at Sarah Jane Brown; it is disingenuous to eliminate the status quo as a viable option and force a choice between the remaining options. That said, on the substance I do agree that the status quo is an improper use of parenthetical disambiguation, so my ranking is 3 > 4 > 1 > 2 > status quo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  Any editor could have raised such objections with the closer of the previous discussion, or through an appeal of that close. Nevertheless, it has been clear since early on in this discussion that the few editors who support the status quo have the ability to express that. If you'd like, I can poll all of the editors who have supported a change from the status quo to insure that their position to this effect is not dictated by the outcome of the previous discussion. That would eliminate any validity concerns. BD2412 T 20:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  So far I have only seen a few people (e.g. Favre1fan93, S5A-0043T) rank the status quo anywhere but the very top or very bottom, so this is mostly a moot point; this approach is most problematic when a substantial amount of people rank the status quo in the middle. But my general point stands: We shouldn't hold RfCs in two stages, one to determine if the status quo should change and other to choose an alternative. This is why the Brexit vote was poorly designed: most likely no individual plan (no deal, customs union, Norway-style, Canada-style, etc.) would have defeated remain, but they combined to give the edge to leave without a clear plan in mind.

  For a more Wikipedia-centric example, let's say that a title is currently a disambiguation page, e.g. New York. Suppose that 20% agree with the status quo, while 80% want change. Of that 80%, 40% want New York (state) to be the primary topic and 40% want New York City to be the primary topic. Obviously, the status quo should remain even though it has only 20% support! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

• Comment Im seeing various examples of people saying "x does work becuase this one show has a comma" or "y is bad because of this one instance". There are plenty of shows where this wouldnt be a problem majority even. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  The current method does not cause problems for any shows, so if we want to change our naming conventions (for whatever reason), we should not be introducing more problems. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• We use parentheses for disambiguation on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles. (Look at the top of this page, it's even done here.) This WP:LOCALCON probably shouldn't change that. And in this case, it is the clearest and reduces confusion and ambiguity. Which, incidentally, is the title of the relevant guideline, as noted. If the closer doesn't closer per existing guidelines, and instead closes as some sort of no consensus for the status quo, then some sort of punctuation (4>3>1). Oppose merely having a space, due to lack of clarity. - jc37 04:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Jc37: The locus of the issue is that seasons of a show are not ambiguous topics at all; they are discrete instances of the same topic. There is no disambiguation involved. This is comparable to, e.g., the Summer Olympics. The 1996 Summer Olympics are not ambiguous to the 2000 Summer Olympics, even though both are Summer Olympics, so we don't have installments of the Olympics titled Summer Olympics (1996) and Summer Olympics (2020); the Toy Story sequels are titled Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3, and Toy Story 4, not Toy Story (2), Toy Story (3), and Toy Story (4). The only difference between a TV series and a film sequel is that TV series typically appear on television and are further spread out into episodes. BD2412 T 04:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  There's a difference, in that the film is actually called Toy Story 4. The TV show is called Hawaii Five-0. Not, Hawaii Five-0 2010 TV series. That's Wikipedia internal labelling for disambiguation from other years' episodes of a show. Not making that clear, is not only ambiguous, but technically, might well get us into WP:NEO territory, where we are now inventing phrases for what something should be called. - jc37 04:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Re-using my above quote, "(season 1)" is not a valid disambiguation. If Mercury (mythology) concerns the concept called Mercury that is specifically from mythology while Mercury (planet) concerns the concept called Mercury that is specifically a planet, then by the same rules, One Piece (1999 TV series) concerns the entity titled One Piece that is specifically a 1999 TV series (valid), while One Piece (season 20) concerns the entity titled One Piece that is specifically a... "season 20"? That usage of disambiguation is invalid. One Piece (season 1) and One Piece (season 2) are separate topics that do not require disambiguation. Given your example of Hawaii Five-0, you seem to be thinking we want to remove the disambiguation from "2010 TV series"; that is incorrect, and if you look at the initial examples, you'll see that that's what's remaining. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  a "season 20", is a season of a show, identified as the 20th one. It is a particular noun, which is comparable to a different noun. Such as "season 19". - jc37 04:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

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

  Sure they are.

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

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

  Disambiguation is creating a distinction between two (or more) nouns, whether they be objects or concepts or whatever, is immaterial. - jc37 04:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Except for examples like Episode 1 (Humans series 1). The title is "Episode 1", that belongs to Humans series 1; we don't title it Humans series 1 (Episode 1). The exact same situation needs to apply to season numbering as well. Or even Glorious Purpose (Loki season 1) and Glorious Purpose (Loki season 2); note how the season numbering does not require further disambiguation here. Can you show examples of where episode numbers are used as disambiguations? -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, in that case, "Episode 1" is the actual title of the episode, not just its numerical identifier. Compare to Pilot (The Big Bang Theory). Or for a clearer example, Pilot (Twin Peaks) and Episode 1 (Twin Peaks).

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

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

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

  Where you seem to be getting in the weeds is whether the show or the episode or the season should be the main topic or the parenthetical. And that's something that's been determined by previous consensus as well. Whether we say Season 2 (Lost), or Lost (season 2), either way, we are disambiguating between the two concepts. - jc37 05:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Jc37: Please explain how this is different from having Summer Olympics (2020). Is Summer Olympics not a noun? BD2412 T 15:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  2020 Summer Olympics is the WP:COMMONNAME for "Games of the XXXII Olympiad". So once again, that the actual name of the topic, not a Wikipedia-determined disambiguator. - jc37 17:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I believe that thus far in this discussion, I am the only participant to provide sources containing examples of real world common name usage of television seasons. None of those examples used parentheses. BD2412 T 18:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  To help sort of contribute to establishing that how it's commonly used, and to reuse some examples I put up in previous discussion since I haven't really pitched:

  • AMC’s Season Six Premiere Of “Mad Men” Returns To 3.4 Million Viewers, both AMC and the quoted Nielsen use a space
  • Game of Thrones: Season 1, colon
  • Find Out What’s Ahead for ‘The Crown’, ‘Sex Education’ and More, space
  • Yes, Chef! FX’s ‘The Bear’ Is Back for Season 2 on Hulu, space
  • The Bear Season 2: Everything We Know, Review: ‘The Bear’ Season 2 Changes Courses, space
  • The Originals Season 4 Promo Features Shocking 'Return', space
  • RHOSLC Fans Are Reeling Over That Season 4 Finale Bombshell, A Bridgerton Season 3 Clue May Reveal How Colin Will Woo Penelope, space
  • Watch The Man in the High Castle - Season 1 | Prime Video, dash
  • The Man in the High Castle - Rotten Tomatoes, colon
  • Black Sails Season 3, Black Sails Season 3 Finale Is Where Long John Silver Becomes a Legend, space
  • BBC One - Doctor Who, Series 5, The Eleventh Hour, comma
  • 'Breaking Bad' Season 3, Episode 5, 'Mas,': TV Recap, Breaking Bad Season 3 Ratings, space
  • hell, for fun, some podcasts: MIDST Season 2 returns on YouTube, MAG Season 5 changes

  It's fairly clear in common usage that the concept of "Show Name season X" is a discrete and common topic from the general concept of the show, at the very least, in SOME form in a way that doesn't require parenthesis. I don't really see how "Show Name season X" wouldn't be a WP:NATDIS option in the same way that we use the names of seasons with official names, i.e. American Horror Story: Coven. It generally feels a little obtuse to me that there's some insistence on stepping around the concept that seasons or series are a discrete unit of a show. At some point, arguments for parenthesis make me feel like it should be "Breaking Bad (Felina)" instead of Felina (Breaking Bad). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Is there some actual styleguide out there in the world for this, or are we merely cherry-picking examples from however some writer of an article (or perhaps their editor) blithely decided to format certain text? - jc37 20:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think there is any cherry-picking going on here. A fairly broad sweep of how sources refer to TV seasons validates that these are the common ways by which they are denoted in the real world. BD2412 T 20:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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

  I do also think that is says something that the Loki episodes brought up earlier makes a great point with the way they're titled. Glorious Purpose (Loki season 1) instead of Glorious Purpose (Loki: season 1) or Glorious Purpose (Loki, season 1). ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  That they can be seen as/considered as "discrete topics and entries of a work", is why they can even be a separate article. What we're talking about is changing an across-the-board naming convention on Wikipedia. And so far, it's mostly just a case of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. Which I don't mind discussing - After all, many MoS discussions come down to being merely a matter of preference.

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

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

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

  There is no actual style guide being relied upon, but WP:CHERRYPICKING is perhaps a claim too far. Rather, what's happening is that various commenters here are trying to rely on how off-site writers in the entertainment press (offline and online) approach this writing question, and surmising completely incorrectly that Wikipedia "must" follow the aggregate preference of offline writers. This is fallacious, of course (specifically the WP:Common-style fallacy). WP has its own style guide, and various off-site writers do not follow it; meanwhile they are following their own stylesheets (AP Stylebook, some other journalistic manual, or one they've developed in-house) and Wikipedia does not follow their style guides. The consequence of this misapplication of the "follow the sources" idea (which is something we apply to facts, not writing style, or it literally would not be possible for us to have our own MoS and AT policy at all) is an artificial favoring of no punctuation at all, because off-site writers tend to drop any characters they can get away with dropping and have far less regard for how easily parsed their material is than WP does (journalism is driven by expediency and concision, and also riddled with "insider-crowd" writing; see also WP:Specialized-style fallacy which applies to fandoms equally as to professions). Further, many of them are are also using styles like quotation marks around series names that are "foreign" to WP writing, which makes the separation of the series name from other information clearer in their material, while WP only uses italics (and not always, just when the formatting is done properly in running text). Thus there are three proposals for punctuated separation, but also some (confused, in my view) argument against using any at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Since the question has been asked, with respect to style guides, the MLA Handbook uses commas, also including the name of the series creator between the title and the season number. I have also checked the Bluebook and the Chicago Manual of Style, and both have instructions for citing TV series and episodes, but do not discuss seasons. The Latin Post style guide has instructions for identifying seasons, but just says "TV Seasons: Season 1, Season 2, Season 3, Season 4, Season 5, etc."; in it's articles, it uses spaces (e.g., "'The Blacklist' Season 3 Spoilers: Why Does Liz Go Blonde?" (headline), and ""The Blacklist" Season 3 will premiere on Thursday, Oct. 1, at 9 p.m. EST on NBC" (text). BD2412 T 13:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  There was disagreement in the previous discussion as to whether these can be considered disambiguation. But neither interpretation makes a convincing case for us to move away from parentheses: if it is indeed disambiguation, then parentheses are the standard punctuation used (unless natural or comma-separated disambiguation is workable and commonly used in sources); if it is not disambiguation, there is no reason to switch either, except for subjective ILIKEIT arguments. This holds true regardless of how many people are !voting for 1–4, and you are right when you say This WP:LOCALCON probably shouldn't change that. Perhaps season numbers are not quite the same as disambiguating between topics of the same name, but rather denoting subtopics. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) is a good example, and in fact, that is how many of our policies and guidelines are named. Wikipedia:Notability (films) isn't a notability guideline that is a film, it is a subtopic of the parent/general notability guideline page, WP:N; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) isn't a naming convention that is a television, it is a subtopic of the parent/general naming conventions page, WP:AT. MoS subtopic pages use a slash, but obviously that is not an option for articles in the mainspace. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think that it's clear that season parentheticals are not disambiguators, but I do agree with you that them not being disambiguations shouldn't on its own prevent us from using them, as different symbols are often used for different purposes and it's still fine and easy to understand with its context. An example is italics, which are used both for emphasis and titles of major works. —El Millo (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  We shouldn't rely on italics to help differentiate, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Text. - jc37 05:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Please read my comment again. I wasn't saying we should use italics to differentiate between titles. I was saying that, in the same way italics are used for two different purposes (emphasis and titles of works), we could also use parentheses for two different purposes. We are not required to use parentheses strictly just for disambiguations. —El Millo (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  On that I agree. Punctuation usage is (presumably by design) multi-purpose-able : )

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

  (edit conflict) Yes. And BD2412's initial rationale was that we shouldn't use parentheses for non-disambiguation. After that, there was no justification given for why? It's going to be a tough one to summarize this RfC if we do end up getting rid of parentheses: "Editors decided in 2024 to switch from parentheses to [XXX] because ... some people thought they looked nicer?" InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  This entire discussion was prompted by disambiguators having to deal with monstrosities like The Great British Baking Show (season 1) (disambiguation). Note that the "(disambiguation)" portion can not be combined with the other parenthetical portion, or the system will perpetually report it as an error needing to be fixed, the avoidance of which is the entire reason WP:INTDABLINK exists. It is impossible for disambiguators to battle the constant stream of disambiguation links if things are set up to create permanent appearances of errors needing to be fixed. BD2412 T 15:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Now that is something I wish we could change. I just don't imagine anyone typing "(disambiguation)" into a search. I wish we used some other, more user-friendly, way to to that. But of course, that would also require a broader RFC than just this page. - jc37 17:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  That would never happen, because we would have either The Great British Baking Show (disambiguation)#Seasons or a DAB page titled The Great British Baking Show (season 1). That's how we always treat partial disambiguation; there's no Hawaii Five-O (TV series) (disambiguation), only Hawaii Five-O (TV series); there's no Apple (company) (disambiguation), only Apple (disambiguation)#Businesses and organisations. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  But editors (who are also readers) do in fact regularly use "(disambiguation)" in a search or just directly entering it into the URL bar, because we know how our disambiguation system work; this necessarily means that other WP-experienced readers (who have not taken the step of becoming editors) also do this. That is, anything that WP consistently does becomes familiar to frequent users of this site. Ergo, suddently diverging from that consistency in ways that don't make any sense except to a handful of arguers in a wikiproject would have negative consequences for some subset of our readers (not to mention editors whose internal tools have some dependency on systemic consistencies like how disambiguation is performed).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: just want to put here, very very clearly, since it is become a point of contention, my vote in the earlier discussion was for the principal that a TV season is a complete thing of itself, and not a point of ambiguity. One can write of a show that "Picard season 3 was the best season" (which it was), or even that "Criminal Minds season 12 was a tough year for Dr. Spencer Reid." Hyperbolick (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I've made the point repeatedly throughout both phases of discussion that the viewpoint that a string like "season 3" is some form of disambiguation is just an opinion and is actually contested. I can see it as both a topic in itself and as a form of disambiguation. It's its own topic in that, in your example, season 3 of Picard is a discrete subject that can be discussed and written about on its own merits. But it can be considered disambiguation if one chooses to perceive Picard as a single subject which has been split into multiple pages for length reasons, though in the latter case it's not true disambiguation strictly speaking, but a disambiguation-like consistent naming pattern of the individual segments of multi-page stand-alone list articles (in this case, lists of episodes in seasons of shows, some of which need their own "true" disambiguation). Ideally we come to a solution that gives both perceptions (all perceptions? could there be more?) of the matter something they can live with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: Let us disabuse the notion socratically. TV series called “Castle" ran eight seasons in the 00s and 10s. There is, obviously, a disambiguation page at Castle (disambiguation). If seasons are individually ambiguous, then all ought to be listed on that page. So, ought they? Another TV series, "How I Met Your Mother" ran nine seasons. No other topic shares this name. If seasons are individually ambiguous, there ought to be a disambiguation page, How I Met Your Mother (disambiguation), listing the nine seasons. Would such a thing fly as a disambiguation page? Seems the ones bending every which way to call this "disambiguation" and deem this whole discussion as "IDONTLIKEIT" are themselves immersed in "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" -- but perhaps they simply feel beleaguered. Look at the followup discussion, which now has many more participants then the first discussion, is absolutely astonishing how little support there is for the status quo. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  As stated above, even if we don't consider TV seasons disambiguation, there is no justification for doing away with parentheses. No policy or guideline restricts the use of parentheses to disambiguation, and the current naming system has never demonstrably caused problems for readers or editors. If this is not disambiguation, then the parentheses are simply being used to denote subtopics of a TV series, as in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) where (television) is a subtopic of the main Wikipedia:Article titles (which used to be called Wikipedia:Naming conventions). This is similar to the use of a slash in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, but slashes are not an option in article space.

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

  InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just out of curiousity, concerning the example of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) where (television) is a subtopic of the main Wikipedia:Article titles, are there any other widespread examples of this in the main namespace? I'd be interested in examining other similar examples of our current naming situation. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Hyperbolick's argument about disambiguation page listing is a solid one. As for InfiniteNexus's "There is no justification for doing away with parentheses", there clearly is, namely a consensus (even if a "rough" one) already arrived at to do so, because it is easily confused with disambiguation parentheticals. "Justifications that don't satisfy me personally" != "no justification". Lots of things "ha[ve] never demonstrably caused problems" but are not the best approaches, so we replacle them with better approaches. We do this all the time about all sorts of things, though not trivially. If people consider the current issue trivial, there wouldn't be so much discussion about it. I[DONT]LIKEIT shortcuts to WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and this is not a deletion discussion, but a reformatting (style) discussion about page titles; subjective aesthetic preferences are naturally going to play a role in that, but that will not prevent a consensus from being reached for one format or another. As for the name of this guideline page, I think Alex 21 meant "are there any other widespread examples of this in the project namespace". The naming conventions guidelines and the subject-specific notability guidelines are all named this way. This is not actually disambiguation (this page is not a case of something named "Wikipedia:Naming conventions" that happens to be an example of "television"); rather, it is subcategorization/splitting by topic, in a page-titling manner that happens to use parentheticals that look like disambiguation (which was probably not the best idea). The MoS pages all used to be named this way as well, but were moved to slash syntax as less confusable with disambiguation and to group them better structurally, especially since the main MoS page has precedence over the others in case of a conflict. E.g. WP:Manual of Style/Television. This technically makes them subpages from the server software's perspective, though they are actually guidelines in their own right (albeit secondary ones, as the NC guidelines are secondary to WP:AT policy, and the SNGs are add-ons to the main WP:Notability guideline). The name of this guideline page really has nothing at all to do with this discussion and how it should turn out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you but no, not at all, I definitely meant in the main namespace, not the project namespace. I want to see if there's any widespread examples similar to how we currently name the season articles; i.e. where there is parenthetical disambiguation that isn't actually disambiguation but rather subcategorization/splitting by topic. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Is List of EastEnders characters (2000) or Glossary of nautical terms (A–L) what you are looking for? Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  The titling for the "List of EastEnders characters" is nonstandard to how we title things by year (e.g. Deaths in January 2002, List of 2007 albums, 1997 in tennis) and should be renamed accordingly. The title is also misleading because the article only contains characters introduced in 2000, not all characters on the show during that year. BD2412 T 19:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Parentheses are frequently used to split long lists:

  • Timeline of World War II (1939)
  • List of Latin phrases (C)
  • List of Warner Bros. films (2020–2029)
  • List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20)
  • Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (July 2016 – election day)
  • Glossary of nautical terms (A–L)
  • List of Virtual Console games for Wii (North America)
  • List of Eurovision Song Contest entries (2004–present)
  • List of named minor planets (alphabetical)
  • Timeline of geopolitical changes (before 1500)
  • List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga)

  For articles, it is less common because we can usually append "XXX of" to the main article's title, as in History of Facebook, Criticism of NASCAR, Production of The Lord of the Rings film series, etc. I guess theoretically, "Season 2 of XXX" could also work, but that's not what's being proposed here. As a bonus, the subcats in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style use parentheses to denote subtopics as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP:Naming conventions (lists) permits use of parentheses for this purpose (though they are not the first choice). That doesn't make it a good idea when there are alternatives, doing it is confusable with disambiguation, and doing it make them inconsistent with other similar articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  

  Screenshot of results for a Google search of HBO, "season 3"

  Moreover, Wikipedia chooses names for things that don't have common names. We can't choose a name for something that already has an unambiguous name. Just look at how the producers of the shows themselves identify their seasons by name - PBS, in its own press release, titles its show "Finding Your Roots Season 10" (which looks like a great lineup, by the way); CBS, on their own YouTube page, refers to "The Equalizer | Season 3 (interesting choice with the pipe); NBC, on its own website, says "Night Court Season 2 premieres January 2, 2024 at 8/7c; HBO, on its own website, titles its shows as Succession: Season 3, Six Feet Under: Season 5, Game of Thrones: Season 8. Perhaps more telling, doing a Google search for HBO and "season 3" returns the results to the right (the appearance of which HBO does have the ability to control, just as we do for our search results). BD2412 T 16:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  So, it basically seems that "chaos reigns", other than one general style guide (MLA Handbook) addresses the question and recommends the comma, with no other such works having any advice (that we know of so far), and actual practice just being all over the map, though entertainment-journalism practice is primarily no punctuation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say that "chaos reigns"; even the entities that do not list rules in their style guides do tend to follow the common rule of denoting a season by saying "Name of Show season X". If, as suggested by some in this discussion, we put parentheticals after that, we will generally have "Name of Show season X (Name of Country TV series)" or "Name of Show season X (Year TV series)". BD2412 T 17:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  What you have basically shown is that sources do not agree on a "standard" way of denoting seasons. Some use spaces, some use colons, some use pipes, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  Most, as it turns out, use spaces. None use parentheses. BD2412 T 21:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Has anyone considered doing a flip-flop and use Season X (Show Name) instead? Then that would most certainly be disambiguation, in which case parentheses are the most appropriate. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  • We don't flip-flop other things and have, e.g., Crown (Toyota) or III: The Search for Spock (Star Trek). What if we are talking about a unique season number? There is only one show in Wikipedia for which we have articles on its 42nd, 43rd, and 44th seasons, should those articles be at Season 42, Season 43, and Season 44, since they require no further disambiguation from any other articles in the encyclopedia? BD2412 T 21:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  • That would be as impractical as the Season X of Show, with thousand of results appearing before the desired one, but in that case, a gigantic Season 1 disambiguation page would technically have to be created with all the first seasons of every show in existence. —El Millo (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)