Talk:There's...Johnny!

Merge into There's... Johnny!

There already exists an article for this show. If there are additions to be made, they should be there. If there's reason to move it, it should be brought up for discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I concede that I should have gone ahead and initiated a discussion. Please see below. – BoogerD (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that There's... Johnny! be merged into There's...Johnny!. The first article is not written in a grammatically correct manner consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions or in the manner that NBCUniversal has expressed it is to be written. Had I known that the other article already existed, I would have moved it to the correct title before rewriting it. – BoogerD (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any NBCUniversal source listed on the article. I see a variety of sources, which are inconsistent in the name, but with There's... Johnny! being the most common. It is also most in line with the title card. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here is an NBCUniversal press release. It's THERE’S… JOHNNY!, with the space after the ellipsis, both in the title and the body of the press release. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point about the NBCUniversal claim. I thought I had read that in one of the articles. As far as consistency among various sources, these sources include the space ([1]) and these sources do not ([2] [3] [4] [5], [6], [7]). This article ([8]) writes the title with two spaces and another three articles/webpages ([9] [10] [11]) include mentions with two spaces and mentions without any.

Seeso posted an announcement regarding the service's closure on their official Facebook page on August 9, 2017 where they spelled it with no spaces ([12] [13]). – BoogerD (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Hulu uses no spaces as well [14]. – BoogerD (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the sources for the extant article:

Thus we prove that, ummm, the folks at Indiewire are an enemy to the public, I think. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I've done quite a bit of editing on television-related articles and therefore read through my share of sources. Never before have I seen such inconsistency. But, wow, I don't even know what to say about IndieWire. That's another level. – BoogerD (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for your earlier claim that one is "grammatical" and the other not, that's not really the case. This is a matter for style, not grammar... and the ~~grammar~~ style guides differ greatly. Neither version is acceptable under either the Chicago or AP style guide, as both require spaces before and after the ellipsis. However, the University of Oxford Style Guide calls for a space only afterward, when the ellipsis is used to indicate a pause (which is clearly the case here.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that insight NatGertler. You seem to be quite educated on the subject. From what you are saying, it sounds as if there is no consensus regarding spaces and ellipsis among grammarians and linguists. However, I am wondering if there is some sort of guideline here on Wikipedia to encourage consistency among articles as it relates to this issue (something one might find in the MOS). For instance, Wikipedia has blanket policies regarding capitalization in articles titles no matter what the networks, studios or trade magazines say as can be seen here Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Capital letters. I suppose that is what trying to be decided here. As it stands now in the discussion, multiple sources write the title differently and, as you have pointed out, there is inconsistency among various grammar guides as well. – BoogerD (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I did a lot of the more recent work on the other wiki page for theres johnny. I am a new editor (i just joined 4 days ago, after seeing the original theres johnny page to be a stub). I'm sorry if i made some mistakes. Regarding the spelling of the show, I simply added on to the page that already existed, i'm not exactly sure what is correct. I've also accidently just uploaded another title card because I didn't see you had uploaded one already. I'm assuming you are working on merging the two pages? or should i? let me know if you need anything. MehAlexander (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There are basic procedural errors here. The other article has existed since April while this was only created recently and been mainly edited by only one person on one day. What should happen is content from this article be merged into the original and then, if there is concern about the name, then suggest a move to this title. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so it is clear. This article was created accidentaly in the sense that I did not realize that an article for the series already existed. I typed the title of the series into my sandbox without the space and when a redlink came up I went ahead and created the article. I can't say that I've ever made this error before and certainly have no intention of it happening again in the future. Once I realized that their were now two articles covering the same topic, I tried to use my limited knowledge to rectify the situation. @AussieLegend: you are quite a knowledgable editor with a strong grasp of Wikipedia policy and the Manual of Style. What do you suggest the next step is here? How should all proceed? Should one just be bold and do as you said above? BTW, do you have any insight into the use of spaces and ellipsis as it relates to article titles and the MOS? I posed the question here (Wikipedia talk:Article titles#The Use of Ellipsis in Article Titles) and here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#The Use of Ellipsis in Article Titles) looking for more guidance. – BoogerD (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I had an afternoon of spare time, I've merged the two articles (new->old). I still dont know whats the correct spelling for the show name, but I thought I'd move the info on the new page to the old page so that anyone reading the article in the meantime will receive more information. MehAlexander (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that when you do so, the edit summary includes a mention that you are copying it from the other article; that goes to proper crediting and history-tracking needed to handle the content licenses. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nat, I don't know if you saw but I went ahead and did it anyway since I noticed it was essentially already happening. Wish I saw your above note before I did though as I made the bonehead move of not including where the text came from. Not sure how to rectify that now... – BoogerD (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can add a note to the talk page. Having said that, it doesn't seem that vital since it was your own text that you were moving. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]