Talk:America (talk show)

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 16 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed No such user (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Move for consistency in article titles. With respect to ambiguously named TV series produced and aired in the United States, Wikipedia has literally hundreds of articles with the disambiguator "(U.S. TV series)", with "U.S." punctuated. We have precisely twelve that do not have "U.S." punctuated, and there is nothing unusual about these article that warrants different treatment. Notably, newspaper style guides such as the Associated Press Stylebook and The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage recommend using "U.S.", as does the Bluebook. Although there may be other conventions within Wikipedia (such as road names) that use an unpunctuated form, the overwhelming convention for TV series seems to be for using the punctuated form. bd2412 T 17:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency and recognition of national WP:TIES. U.S. convention includes the dots (see MOS:NOTUSA). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone jumps in with references to the Chicago MOS, I'll quote MOS:NOTUSA more fully. "In American and Canadian English, U.S. (with periods) has long been the dominant abbreviation for United States." The fact that some outside MOS now deprecate the periods does not change the most common, recognized form. (U.S. [usually punctuated] juxtaposed with TV [never punctuated] does look strange, however.) Dekimasuよ! 18:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unpunctuated "US" looks like an all-capitalized version of the common pronoun, "us"; "TV" does not have that problem. bd2412 T 20:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose since when the term "UK" is in disambiguators, it does not contain periods. Alternatively, I would recommend starting some sort of discussion to create a disambiguation guideline to enforce a standard for country abbreviations in disambiguators rather than taking this route (to move some existing ones). Otherwise, article titles with inconsistent disambiguators are bound to be created in the future. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But UK is used in British English and U.S. in American English, there doesn't need to be consistency is using periods, rather we should use the formatting used in that country. Zarcadia (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's great and all, but that's not the basis of my oppose. My true basis is the fact that there is no title disambiguation policy/convention for this. Without a consensus-enforced policy that is part of the WP:NC umbrella, this move discussion is like being a doctor and treating the symptoms instead of trying to cure the disease; unless the disease is removed, the symptoms will keep coming back. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article titles#National varieties of English; add a phrase to WP:USPLACE if necessary, but the directions from the combination of WP:AT and WP:NOTUSA are clear. Note that we also have a naming convention that uses "U.S." this way: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways). Dekimasuよ! 07:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943:, putting aside the question of whether "U.S." or "US" should predominate, does it make sense to have 200 article using one style and a dozen using another style? Consistency is also a goal of article titling, isn't it? bd2412 T 21:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: I agree with you 100% (but not with the first part of your statement, since the amount of pages that need to be moved should not overturn a consensus-based decision - Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)), but since I see a larger issue with the consistency of similar disambiguators, I'd rather a firm policy be created prior moves like this occurring. I mean, a move is only as strong as the consensus and policy supporting it. In addition, on the other hand, one of the referenced policies in this discussion, WP:ENGVAR (specifically WP:COMMONALITY), has the acronym displayed as "US", not "U.S." ... which slightly enforces the need for a discussion to determine a consensus-supported disambiguator for "United States". Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the alternative, for the sake of establishing consistency, would be to move well over 200 articles with existing "U.S." disambiguators to "US" titles, which would be a far bigger task. bd2412 T 22:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Sorry, I had to retract part of what I stated. The amount of pages to that need to be moved to establish consistency does not concern me, even if the accepted option turns out to be the one that requires more page moves than the alternative. Without a specific policy to set the standard itself for the disambiguators, and with the fact that this discussion is on one random article's talk page of the bunch (though I like the irony that this talk page is on the article of a subject titled "America" ... quite fitting), it's going to be next to impossible to locate as a discussion that has formed consensus to enforce precedent on these disambiguators, and that point worries me more than attempting to establish disambiguator consistency with a handful of articles. Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:TIES and WP:ENGVAR, U.S. is preferred over US. Zarcadia (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sure the use of periods is dominant in reference to the U.S. in other sources and it is also dominant in Wikipedia. There is no ideological or other issue involved here and I don't see that there is a need for regimentation. I think that the proposed move would enforce a national distinction. I don't think that it is. My only reason for not opposing fully is that the abbreviation US looks like the word us. GregKaye ✍♪ 08:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article titles#National varieties of English draws an implicit distinction between "UK" and "U.S." in its use of those two formats in the same paragraph. Dekimasuよ! 21:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. U.S. is preferred over US in most style guides. -- Calidum 00:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Why the hell not? — AjaxSmack 04:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - obviously we should follow MOS Red Slash 05:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per my comments above. Dekimasuよ! 06:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – WP:ABREV says Some American editors prefer to use "U.S." However, use a consistent style within the same article; use "US" in articles with other national abbreviations, e.g. "UK" or "UAE". Now I realize this is not an question about within the same article, except on disambig pages, but if we're using this to contrast US with UK, then it would seem preferable to also move toward (rather than away from) consistency along that axis, too. Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you going to propose that we move the 200+ articles with "(U.S. TV series)" parentheticals to "(US TV series)" parentheticals? If not, are you going to propose that we do away with consistency as a goal in article titles? bd2412 T 17:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we decide which way we want to be consistent, we should fix accordingly. The 200 doesn't scare me. Dicklyon (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The number of fixes doesn't merely represent the amount of work to be done; it represents the determinations made by dozens of different authors in titling these articles. Here's an interesting data point - I went to do a Google ngram search to see if one or the other predominates, and got a message from Google that it automatically defaults all of these to the "U.S." form. bd2412 T 19:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS:NOTUSA says that "In American and Canadian English, U.S. (with periods) has long been the dominant abbreviation for United States." (It also goes on to say more, and I invite to read the rest as well, but I think that sentence accurately reflects the dominant situation in North American English.) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (all moves) – as per BarrelProof, et al. Honestly, this one seems like a 'no brainer' to me... --IJBall (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support all for consistency. Per WP:TIES, that would mean moving from "US" to "U.S.", not the other way around. Hard to understand how that could be controversial. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this have been closed by now? – It wasn't relisted, and it's been more than a week... --IJBall (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: Yeah, when an uninvolved editor or administrator comes around to it to assess the consensus. The seven day requirement is only a guideline, and if the editor who come around thinks that consensus could be clearer after another week, then they will relist it themselves. Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - We in the UK prefer just "UK", The U.S prefer "U.S" ... If the U.S prefer the full stop then we should respect that & use it. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the standard method of disambiguating TV series. Tassedethe (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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