This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I have attempted to create a Wikilink to yeti from the "Abominable Snow Monster" but it has been reverted twice by MarnetteD, the first time citing WP:EGG (which isn't applicable, since it's a common connection found in reliable sources) and secondly for the reason "yeti legends are Himalayan not the north pole" (also irrelevant for a fanciful work of fiction, as reindeer don't inhabit the north pole either).
"Abomidable Snowman" is a synonym for yeti, as discussed in the yeti article. The show (and this article) also refers to the monster as "Abominable Snowman". There really isn't any other conclusion to draw that the link is a logical one.
This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The Bumble is never once referred to as a yeti. Also, nothing about the "Bumble" has any connection to the yeti of legend - with the possible exception of cold climes. If you can find something that mentions that the writers of this special were trying to connect it to the Himalayan legend that would help. MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
As to the links Science News makes no mention of this Xmas special or the Bumble. Yeti is only used in the sub-headline which will have been written by an editor and not the author of the article. This is evidenced by the fact that the rest of the article refers only to Bigfoot. SBI makes the claim that they are the same but provides no evidence. Same goes for FWI. All they are doing nothing more that speculating about this fictional item. MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Having said all this there are far more misleading and absurd links than this in WikiP articles so feel free to restore this one. MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Um, perhaps you should read the Science News article more closely. It says plainly in the article body: "The idea of a white 'abominable snowman' came from TV shows like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer." The point is that reliable sources make the connection, therefore we are not engaging in synthesis by linking this article to yeti. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
The quote is interesting, but I wonder what the basis of this statement is? Seems like either speculation or original research on the part of the author since he doesn't state his source and the sentence isn't a quote.
That being said, since the first part of that paragraph says "If there is a previously unknown bear species living in the Himalayas, it may be what people there have seen and reported as a yeti. Coleman says that would be consistent with those reports. “They’re always brown,” he says." then the connection on this page of the Bumble with the Yeti is completely false and should be dropped. Right? Ckruschke (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke
All I'm saying is, the connection is being made by reliable sources. It is not up to us to speculate on whether those sources are themselves engaging in original research. The fact remains that reliable sources make the connection. Furthermore, this article uses the term "Abominable Snowman", which is a synonym for yeti. This whole discussion is about whether or not to provide a wikilink from that to the yeti article so that readers can learn more about what an "Abmonimable Snowman" or "Abominable Snow Monster" actually is. I don't see the harm in providing such a link. Doing so doesn't violate WP:OVERLINKING and actually enlightens readers who may choose to click on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
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.
Per WP:RS/IMDB that site cannot be used as a reference. I will repeat this is not - in any way shape or form - a film so that term should not be used in the DAB of the article. MarnetteD|Talk 06:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: In what sense is this not a film? How would you define the difference between a TV movie and a TV special? --Jpcase (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
First, in every sense this is not a film. As to the second part of the question it does not matter what my distinction between the two is - what matters is what WP:RSs state. Lastly, the term "film" refers to theatrical releases. At the very least "television" needs to be added to the DAB. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. It's far more recognizable under it's current title. WP:NCTV recommends "(TV program)" for cases like this, which would be acceptable, although "special" is also often used and works better in this case. Station1 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Station1: Are you referring to the "Non-series television" section of WP:NCTV? That section seems to be about game shows, talk shows, and news programs, so I'm not sure that it would apply to Rudolph. --Jpcase (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. That section refers to game shows, talk shows, and "all other programs". Station1 (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Station1: Yes, but it seems to be specifically referring to non-narrative programs. --Jpcase (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see that, but in any case I think far more readers will recognize this as a TV show or program or special than as a film. Station1 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Station1: To quote the "Non-series television" section of WP:NCTV: "These shows generally lack on-going narrative or story elements." Admittedly, it's a little vague as to whether that statement is referring to all non-series television or just multi-episode non-series television, but it seems to me that it's referring to the former - especially considering that the only examples listed under the "Non-series television" section are all articles about non-narrative programs.
As to whether this is a "special" or a "film"...can't it be both? Christmas-themed episodes from TV shows are arguably "Christmas specials", but they're also TV show episodes. I can't see why Rudolph can't be a Christmas special that's also a film. --Jpcase (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure it could be both. But we have to pick one for the title and one for the redirect. And I think more people will recognize the article as being about what they are looking for with the current title, especially since there are other films with the title, and the current title is consistent with other TV specials. Station1 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, all of the links you cite were moved from "(TV special)", or in one case "(TV program)", one as recently as yesterday. In my opinion, they should all be moved back, but we should wait until we see how this RM turns out. Station1 (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Station1: Ah, I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out. I just looked through the histories for those articles; most of the articles were moved over a year ago. The one that was moved from (TV special) to (film) yesterday - Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town - had previously been moved from (film) to (TV special) last month. It seems to have gone back and forth a few times.
I also am only now realizing that Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town wasn't added to WP:NCTV as an example of a TV film until quite recently. So the matter is certainly open to debate. But I still feel that (film) would be the better disambiguation style.
A comparison could be made to how we title articles about short films. Most people wouldn't recognize For the Birds (film) or Feast (2014 film) as being about films, they would recognize those articles as being about short films - yet it's accepted practice on Wikipedia to use (film) for disambiguation purposes, instead of (short film), because ultimately a short film is really just a type of film - much like a feature length Christmas special is really just another type of film. --Jpcase (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Station1. All of the (mislabeled) programs are recognized as television programs not films. BTW "short films" still have a screening in theaters - even if it is only at a film festival - all of the programs listed above were shown on "television" and I still say that term needs to be in the DAB. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Station1: It seems that WP:NCTV has gone through some recent changes - and starting a larger conversation about this at that article's talk page would likely be a good idea. --Jpcase (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: Whether or not a "film" is screened in theaters doesn't determine whether or not it's considered a "film". It's common practice on Wikipedia to disambiguate articles about TV movies with (film) - see Game Change (film) and Killing Kennedy (film). --Jpcase (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. IMO those examples should be changed. This seems to have changed over the years as there was a time when "television" was included in the DAB. The use of the word "film" by itself does indicate a theatrical release to the reader. MarnetteD|Talk 01:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Clearly the answer is yes. There are numerous differences in the way films and television films are made - in the 60's that was even more apparent - but that is off topic for this discussion. Also I ask that you please stop pinging me. I have this page on my watchlist and I would prefer to not see that little red dot every time I log back on to the 'pedia. Please do not take offense - I know that you are trying to be thorough and I appreciate that fact. MarnetteD|Talk 01:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
If you want to push for having the disambiguation style for articles about television films changed from (Film) to (Television film), then you're welcome to do so. Heck, it might even be a pretty good idea. But unless such a change is made, I don't see why we would treat Rudolph any differently from other made-for-TV films. --Jpcase (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Support This a typical television film and should follow the WP:NCFILM guidelines. Dimadick (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Support I can appreciate the argument that "TV special" may, at least for some readers, be a more recognizable description of Rudolph than the word "film" is. And I would support continuing to describe Rudolph as a "Christmas special" in the article's lead. But for article titling purposes, "TV special" seems like an overly vague and subjective term. (Film) seems like the better disambiguation style to me. --Jpcase (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
How in the world is TV special vague? That smacks of sophistry. MarnetteD|Talk 01:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
For what it is worth a Google search shows 1,360,000 hits for TV special and 234,000 for 1964 film. TV special doesn't seem vague to this search engine MarnetteD|Talk 02:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
It is also worth noting that NCFILM makes no mention of television projects whatsoever. So I wonder why it is being used in this thread. I do see that NCTV links to NCFILM but that may be a mistake considering the current state of both guidelines. MarnetteD|Talk 02:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
couple comments/responses - The distinction is one of format vs venue. A television special is similar in nature to a midnight movie or other type of special screening - a special presentation (some of which develop into a tradition) that describes when and where the content is shown... its venue. Its mostly an advertising term. Format is different, Rudolph is a stop motion animated short film, but a film nonetheless. And so, once something fits the format of a film, rather than any sort television program, WP:NCTV defers to WP:NCFILM for all naming. Even if you disagree, neither of those naming conventions describe (TV special) as a method of disambig... and I doubt we could because few would agree on a way to define that for inclusion in a naming convention. After all, what makes something a (TV special) vs. the standard disambig of (TV program)? Is it only a "Special" because it airs once, or once a year? If so, then isn't that only a distinction of venue (when and where), not format? It would feel very awkward describing this as a TV special if you're watching it via a different venue, like DVD or Netflix. -- Netoholic@ 06:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Like everything else, we need to go by what reliable sources call things, not our own definitions. I see sources that call Rudolph a film, but it seems like significantly more call it a TV special. Station1 (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
You need to distinguish further. Ensure the sources aren't mentioning it in the context of an "event", rather than a format. For example, this top search result is talking about it as a special and gives specific network, date and time. Its the same sort of announcement one might see for a special screening of a film (theater, date and time). -- Netoholic@ 09:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
A "TV special" broadcast nationwide and seen by millions is not comparable to a midnight film screened locally and seen by an audience limited to the theaters seating capacity. I will mention again for those who've missed it the NCFILM guidelines make no mention of TV productions - nor should it since it since they are designed strictly for theatrical films. Why the TV project defers to it is a mystery. I don't remember any discussion at the film project about this. IMO it is misguided at best. I would suggest that this RFM be put on hold and a RFC be started at the TV project about their current naming guidelines and any changes that could be made to make them less confusing. MarnetteD|Talk 05:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that a wider discussion at WP:NCTV would be beneficial. --Jpcase (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons described by Staton1 above. Most people don't know off the top of their head what year that Rankin/Bass Rudolph special was made. They'd be able to recognize "TV special" in the title and be like, "Yes, that's the one" instantly. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.