Talk:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) season 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Colour contrast problems[edit]

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) (season 1). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 December 2018[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved after a small screw-up. 3-1 in support of original proposal, it isn't as much as I'd have liked but the technical considerations and seemingly never-before-encountered issue of double disambiguation by year of TV series and season number means there isn't really consensus to apply. Andrewa is right that more discussion is needed about cases like these, but that is probably best handled at an RFC rather than in one particular RM. That way, a broader audience of Wikipedians will be able to formulate a guideline for this kind of thing. Best regards, (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– Double-parenthetical disambiguation is awkward here. {{Italic title}} and the like look for the last parenthetical and behave as if everything before that, including the first parenthetical, is part of the actual title of the subject, rather than a parenthetical disambiguator. Then you need to override that with |italic_title=no in the infobox and resort to direct use of {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. SITH (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Note the convoluted and unintuitive edits that must be made to work around this un/poorly-supported "naming convention". – wbm1058 (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is an issue I've noticed but sadly, its hard getting anything not already in the NCTV guideline addressed/added/updated. I'll put this on my watchlist and think about this some more (this isn't the only article like this. Easy example is Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) (season 1) etc). --Gonnym (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this proposal, as of right now. We have indeed discussed ones like this already in WT:NCTV (see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Anthology of films with identical "episode" names (Hallmark Hall of Fame)), and the general consensus was this kind of "double parenthetical disambiguation" was a "no-no". I think the solution I proposed at the time was very much like the one proposed here... However, I reserve the right to change my opinion, based on further discussion here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have noticed this same issue of double parentheticals in the past with other articles, and it needs to be addressed. This is the most logical way to do it. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what is the difference between Big Brother (Australian TV series) and Big Brother (Australian season 6) vs Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) (season 1)? Both have the "additional disambiguation" - one uses the year, while one uses the country, so following the current style in use, shouldn't the TMNT season article be titled Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 season 1)? I can't see a situation where we have one style for years, yet another style for countries. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, that solution would be pretty horrible, IMO. Taking your example, you'd end up with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 season 7), which implies that season 7 aired in 2003 when it actually aired in 2008–2010 – it's incredibly confusing. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series, season 7) is the most WP:PRECISE solution here and leads to no ambiguity. Meanwhile, as pointed out in the proposal, not only are "double parentheticals" dang ugly looking, they also introduce unnecessary technical issues. The proposed RM solution here does the best job at balancing all of the competing factors (e.g. WP:NCTV) and interests. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that is the case, then I'll have to officially oppose this current proposal as it contradicts the current WP:NCTV guidelines. A WP:CONSISTENT style is both more professional and easier for other editors to follow. It is also easily achieved with proper understanding of the underlying issue. Deciding that "season" disambiguation is written one way and "release year" disambiguation is written in a wildly different style is neither professional nor easy for editors to follow. --Gonnym (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure I understand your claim that "it contradicts the current WP:NCTV guideline". Your Big Brother (Australian TV series)/Big Brother (Australian season 6) isn't relevant to this situation as there's only one Australian "Big Brother" TV series. Similarly, it doesn't matter if this situation was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) vs. another series of the same title, or, say, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (U.S. TV series) vs. another series – as there are two different series articles with the same title, we'd be forced to do something like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series, season 7) or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (U.S. TV series, season 7), either way here. I don't see how this "contracts" or "violates" NCTV... And, even if it somehow did, this is exactly what RM's are for – guidelines cannot possibly cover 100% of all eventualities, so there will always be "edge" cases that can't be covered in the guideline (due to WP:CREEP), and so will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis at RM's, as this one is. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Will comment on your last point first - see WP:TVSEASON for how we deal with multiple shows of the same name, include the disambiguation, similar to the above for TV series in the season description (also WP:CREEP, essay, zero weight, and also idiotic). As long as disambiguation by year happens a lot, this isn't an edge case, but just a normal case. My Big Brother (Australian season 6) example is used to show how disambiguation between seasons with extended disambiguation is done, as I'm pretty sure you know. Regarding then example, there are numerous other Big Brother such as Big Brother (German season 8) and Big Brother (Finnish season 4) - all disambiguated without the need for the double parentheses. If you think this proposal for the year one is better, then the seasons could also benefit from it and become Big Brother (German TV series, season 8) and Big Brother (Finnish TV series, season 4). Alternatively, one can realize that "season" is actually not a qualifier here, but in fact, actually the topic of the article and the articles could be "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) season 1". Both options are better than the current proposal. --Gonnym (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • But this is virtually a unique situation – we can't use the preferred/simplified "by country" disambig. in this case, because both are U.S. series. "By country" disambig. in your "Big Brother" cases is WP:PRECISE enough that additional disambiguation would be superfluous. But that isn't the case here. So, we're stuck with two different series from the same country, that both have season articles. So we can't just number them "from 1 to 17" because they're different series. Thus, each season of each series needs to be uniquely identified. Thus, the option as outlined is the best available option. If I thought there was a better option out there, I'd be for it. But outside of switching it to: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (season 7, 2003 TV series) (i.e. "season first", then "qualifier second", to meet your objection above), I don't see that any other option is as good as the one proposed. The only other option would be to disambig. the seasons by airing year – so Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2008 season) (or, possibly, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2008 TV season)). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • (2003 season 1), (2003 season 2), (2003 season 3), etc do work. As does (German TV series, season 1), (German TV series, season 2), (German TV series, season 3) and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) season 1, Big Brother (German TV series) season 1. All these work and are WP:CONSISTENT with each other. The only one that does not have any consistency with any other style is the current proposal (which has one style for years and one style for countries). --Gonnym (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • An entirely "consistent naming scheme" is less important than a one that works. The current Big Brother (Australian season 6), Big Brother (German season 1), etc. naming scheme works on both WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE grounds and shouldn't be changed. That just leaves the current situation, which is a weird "edge" case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • Why not season 1 of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series), and use that as a standard for all television series? J 1982 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • WP:NCTV going to that kind of naming scheme would pretty much be a disaster in my opinion – imagine if every TV series' season articles went by that naming scheme: now imagine what would happen if a reader typed "season 1 of..." into the search box – they'd get back a dozen of the most popular "season 1 of..." articles, which would probably not include the one they were looking for... No, a "[TV series] (season 1)" general disambiguation formatting scheme for these is a much better choice, and aids in readers finding the appropriate article they were searching for. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This may be a perfect storm and a unique situation, and maybe an exception to one or more otherwise useful rules which cannot cover every situation. But to focus now on this RM, it doesn't seem to be the answer, nor have we yet come up with a better one. Andrewa (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Andrewa: Even if the current proposal isn't the "final solution" to the issue presented by these articles, how is not moving it as per the proposal "better" than at least implementing this proposal as an "interim solution"?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's better IMO because the arguments for this particular move are completely unconvincing. Consistency doesn't enter into it if this is an unusual case, and the rule (whether formal or according to custom) that we don't double-disambiguate exists to serve the encyclopedia, not the encyclopedia for the rule. (We also have rules that if we don't get consensus, we don't move, or as observed below might revert to the name before bold moves were performed, but that's for the closer to assess not me of course.) Andrewa (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note: more discussion could be useful c.f. Gonnym's alt proposal. SITH (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer – While the discussion below failed to come up with a "permanent solution", the technical issues with the current titles presented by the nominator seem to be a valid reason to move these articles as proposed, and while 3 (incl. nominator)-to-1 isn't great "consensus" it does indicate a rough consensus to move here. A "temporary naming solution" in this case is still better than the current situation where these titles are causing technical issues. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page move history[edit]

– An argument could be made that if there is "no consensus" then the fallback status quo would be the original title since the two editors who have previously moved this are both blocked. wbm1058 (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Andrewa (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Under the Wikipedia:Article titles § Disambiguation policy, this is a case of 5: Combinations of the above: exceptional, in most cases to be avoided per WP:CONCISE

The policy cites one Example: "#2 comma-separated" + "#3 parenthetical"

So while there is no example citing "#3 parenthetical" + "#3 parenthetical", I suppose it is not prohibited, although as I pointed out in my request (at the top), you have to jump through technical hoops to support it.

Search for titles following this "parenthetical + parenthetical" convention finds 61 pages, and excluding the 16 "redirect from" pages, we have the following 45 pages:


Looking at the 16 "redirect from" pages in the above search results, I found an outlier:

If this followed the conventions of the above, it would be:

Hmm...

@Gonnym, IJBall, Rreagan007, J 1982, and Andrewa: please read the page move history and discussion sections I added above after StraussInTheHouse relisted this. I'd almost forgotten about this request I submitted a couple weeks ago, and I resorted to searching for my ID in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts to find it (I was thinking it would have closed by now). While I prefer using a comma to separate the series from the season, I'm open to the compromise which omits the comma, i.e. the Mission: Impossible solution, if that will help achieve consensus. Perhaps expanding this to include The Twilight Zone, Dragnet and Dallas will help to get a less WP:CONLIMITED consensus. On the other hand, after thinking about the work involved to move these pages to implement my requested move, I'm thinking it may actually be less time-consuming to make the necessary DISPLAYTITLE fixes, and document the need to do that for this particular permutation of the naming conventions. In any event, I think it's best that we settle this matter now, and update WP:NCTV to specifically address this, because as Hollywood runs out of new ideas and keeps resurrecting more old ideas, this issue can only get bigger in the future. Best to settle on a standard now, rather than later when we might need a bot to implement it! – wbm1058 (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well analysed and support the conclusions. Or in more detail, I think the best solution is to make one of the two forms Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5) or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) season 5 a standard for such cases, which are more common than I expected. Either would do, I quite like the second but don't know why, it may be a feeling that this is a special case and I'd like it to look like one, something like that. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't change my opinion at all – I still support Wbm1058's current proposal as the best available option, at least until a more "permanent solution" can be hashed out. But none of these other iterations listed above are better than the proposed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series, season 1) option, IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is another form of double disambiguation, but mixing comma and parenthetical disambiguation. Essentially, we are disambiguating the disambiguator. It's not terribly logical IMO; Far better to disambiguate the article twice. Andrewa (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't see a problem with "disambiguating the disambiguator". To me, this is something that is going to be rarely required, but is not a "big deal" when it is. "Parenthetical, with comma" disambiguation is going to be rare, but I just don't see it as that big of a deal. As I said above, the only question is whether you do Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series, season 1), or whether you do Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (season 1, 2003 TV series) – to my thinking, the latter is probably somewhat more sensible than the former. Pretty much the only other option is something like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2008 season) (e.g. for season #7), that I suggested above – the one definite advantage of that format is that it does eliminate the "disambiguation of the disambiguator" (i.e. no "double disambiguation"). I could certainly also live with this as the end result... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no intrinsic problem with disambiguating the disambiguator, but this doesn't seem to be a terribly logical way to do it, to me. For one thing, the order seems wrong for comma disambiguation. But somehow it doesn't work the other way around, either. Andrewa (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a precedent[edit]

This is worth some time and work to get consensus. As observed above, it affects other articles and the number of these is likely to increase owing to the way marketing is developing following ongoing technology and viewing changes.

I imagine the relevant WikiProject(s) are using the appropriate alerts to watch such discussions, but it might be worth posting to the WikiProject talk page{s) even so. Andrewa (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent RfC[edit]

Sorry to go five levels deep! But Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2017#RfC: UK railway station disambiguation (closed 14 Dec 2017) definitely deserves a look if this is to set any sort of precedent (as I think it should... the issue won't go away and affects more articles than just TV shows, and affects infobox templates and other coding, see #Technical issues below).

Perhaps an RfC on the more general topic of multiple disambiguation is indicated? Andrewa (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issues[edit]

I see four possible issues, two of them uncontroversial, two to be decided.

  • The base name is I think agreed to be Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles consistent with the name of the article on the franchise.
  • The disambiguation within this particular series is I think agreed to be of the form season 1 etc..
  • The disambiguation of this series from other articles on the franchise is controversial, but probably not problematical.
  • The way these two disambiguations are to be combined is the biggie, and consensus to set a precedent would be worth the effort.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've thrown in a new comment about this above... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That confirms that you see the "biggie" as an issue, yes, but are you OK about the other three? Let's see what we can agree... as I said before I think, fix the little problem(s)... in this case, see what's agreed, and maybe the disagreements won't seem so difficult. Andrewa (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the third issue, which I have labelled controversial but probably not problematical, I note that the article on the series is at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series), and that there's no current move proposal on its talk page. So the simple answer would be, stay with that disambiguator, 2003 TV series, as is proposed in this RM of course. Otherwise, perhaps we should pause this RM while we raise one to discuss the title of this other article. Andrewa (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, I agree with your first two points, but not your third: the first three are all covered under WP:NCTV – the 2003 version of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles needs to be at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series), and "season" articles are usually disambiguated with "(season 1)", "(season 2)", etc. The problem here is the "double disambiguation" needed in this case. For TV series articles with "by country" disambig., this issue solves itself, because you can do something like The Voice (U.S. season 3), and everything works out well. But with "by year" disambiguation, you can't really do Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 season 1), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 season 7), etc.because that simply isn't WP:RECOGNIZABLE enough – for these ones, we need a clearer form of disambig. So you either have to do "double disambig.": Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series, season 1) – or you have to do what I suggested: disambig. them by the year the season premiered, and then we end up with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 season) (i.e. "season #1"), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2008 season) (i.e. "season #7), etc. I get the impression that this latter suggestion may appeal more to you(?...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, I'm not so much interested in putting forth my own ideas as listening to those of yourself and others. I have discovered the hard way that this is more likely to lead to progress.
So, point three is disputed too. That is very good. Let us work on resolving that dispute, and see where it leads.
Is there any need to move the article Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series), in your opinion? Why or why not? Andrewa (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure where to comment so I'll comment here. First, let me point out that I agree that there is a problem. What I don't agree with, is the handling of such problem. I never liked a "patch" solution when a more viable one is also available. I think the problem with the double disambiguation in these articles and also in other country-season articles (which currently work) is that whomever were the "founding fathers" of the NCTV, failed to understand that "season" is not a disambiguation but actually the scope of the article. The article is not "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", but it is actually "Season 3" (of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). Which means that if we really did a straight-forward disambiguation it would be Season 3 (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) similar to Episode (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles). I myself don't like that style as it is not WP:NATURAL, but a more natural style would actually be Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles season 3 and then when we need a disambiguation by country or year it would be Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2000 TV series) season 3 or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (U.S. TV series) season 3. For me, this style checks most of the WP:CRITERIA, with Naturalness and Consistency being unique to this proposal. --Gonnym (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me so far as where to comment goes.
What I don't agree with, is the handling of such problem. I never liked a "patch" solution when a more viable one is also available. Agree. Except of course I don't see how you could possibly interpret this section as me recommending a "patch" solution , that is the exact opposite of my aim here.
I thought I saw where you are coming from with the base name. But it doesn't seem to lead anywhere useful. You seem in some ways to dispute all four of my points, in fact.
And that is exactly the sort of progress I am after. We are unlikely to get consensus on a solution that will survive the test of time unless our thoughts are clear.
For example, if you propose Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (U.S. TV series) season 3 then you are supporting my first point. But you don't seem to be consistent in this. How can The article is not "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", but it is actually "Season 3" (of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) not dispute the first point? Isn't that saying that Season 3 should be the base name? Or is there some other point you are making that I have missed?
Is there some lateral thinking possible here? Might Season 3 (Teenage Ninja Turtles) be a possibility for example? I don't think that's a goer, but we might learn something by considering why it's not.
I confess to some confusion as to the point you are making regarding the base name! But also to hope that we can sort it all out together. Andrewa (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed to contradict myself, as my personal preference is Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (U.S. TV series) season 3, but I'm pointing out that a "true" correct title would be Season 3 (Teenage Ninja Turtles) - as "Season 3" is the actual topic. However, I don't personally like that title style. It works for episodes and characters as those have usually unique titles or titles which are shared with a handful of other pages, while it won't work for "season 3" as that title will be shared with hundreds or more. I didn't necessarily say what you proposed is a patch, I was referring to some points of the discussion in which it was argued that we could use one style for articles that need a year double disambiguation and a different style for a country double disambiguation - that for me is a patch-fix, as we can clearly see that we have a few options that work for all examples pretty well. --Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Season 3 (Teenage Ninja Turtles) is actually the "most correct" titling for these, but I also agree that it is the least desirable titling for these kinds of articles as it would make searching for such articles much more difficult for readers. On the other point, I can live with something like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) season 3, though I still prefer Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (season 3, 2003 TV series), and then Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series, season 3) (i.e. the current proposal), over this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa:, didn't ping you before, so not sure if you saw my response. --Gonnym (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it, Gonnym, and also that of IJBall. Both of you seem to me to want to simply have a poll on what title we each prefer, just go with our gut reactions, rather than try to understand why it might be best and how it might fit into the overall picture of Wikipedia's article naming. That can work, and I wish you well with it, but it's not something I think I can help with. Best. Andrewa (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issues[edit]

It is claimed above that the closer should bear in mind technical issues caused by the current situation, and raised by the nominator. The particular issue raised by nom was behaviour of a template in identifying the base name; This obviously has other possible solutions, for example maybe the template (and others of similar coding) misbehaves in other situations too, and should be fixed.

It's not obvious to me where these issues are discussed above, the consensus seems to be more personal opinions of what looks best, so to make this a bit easier for the closer, let us discuss the technical issues here. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_(2003_TV_series)_season_1&oldid=1216364751"