Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
WikiProject
Television
Project main page
Project discussion
Project assessment talk
Television portal talk
Descendant WikiProjects and task forces
Showcase
Project organization
Article alerts
Deletion sorting
Popular pages
New articles
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Project templates talk
Television stubs
Guidelines
Project manual of style talk
Project notability guidelines talk
TV article naming convention talk
Broadcasting article naming convention talk
Related WikiProjects
Actors and Filmmakers
Albums
Animation
Anime and manga
Comics
Film
Literature
Media franchises
Radio
Screenwriters
Westerns
view · edit · changes

Naming conventions for television channels?

[edit]

See for example

Which do you prefer for naming? WP:NCTV has been cited but it doesn't say directly. RanDom 404 (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The correct guideline would be WP:NCBC, which supports the first option - country disambiguation then "TV channel". -- Alex_21 TALK 22:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Jedi (TV series) has an RfC

[edit]

Tales of the Jedi (TV series) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Titling episode articles without titles

[edit]

I've recently been a part of two RM's that have concerned how to title articles for episodes that do not actually have titles; rather, they are just numbered. Currently, those RM's are open at Talk:Episode 10 (Tá no Ar)#Requested move 27 June 2025 (#1) and Talk:Season 2, Episode 10 (30 Rock)#Requested move 12 July 2025 (#2). As part of thsoe RM's, I have come to realize that we do not have any guideline that concerns this, and as such, as have a multitude of different titling formats with no conformity. I've seen:

Format Example
"Episode SeasonEpisode" Previously where Episode 210Episode 210 was and the requested title for RM #2
"Episode Season.Episode" Suggested at Talk:Episode 1.8 (Secret Diary of a Call Girl) but rejected as ambiguous
"Episode Season.Episode (Show)" Episode 1.8 (Secret Diary of a Call Girl)
"Episode TotalNumber" Episode 4466
"Show episode Number" Twin Peaks episode 1 is suggested at RM #1, and Neighbours episode 8055
"Show (episode Number)" Suggested here at RM #1
"Season Number, Episode Number (Show)" Currently Season 2, Episode 10 (30 Rock), previously where Series 1, Episode 1 (Humans)Series 1, Episode 1 (Humans) was
"Episode Number (Show)" Episode 14 (Twin Peaks)
"Episode Number (Show season Number)" Episode 1 (Humans series 1)

There needs some comformity here. Should we form an RM for this and list the available options? Or is this a consensus we could come to through discussion? -- Alex_21 TALK 00:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer "Show episode Number", or the alternate format "Show season Season episode Number", like 30 Rock season 2 episode 10 if that's how the episode is referred to. I would also be fine with "Episode Number" where the episode number is large enough that it isn't likely to be confused with other shows, but including the show name in all cases is just as good. "Episode SeasonEpisode" seems confusing as it's not actually the SeasonEpisode-th episode. "Show (episode Number)" runs into the same problems as befell the old season naming convention which we moved away from at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 18#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles. "Episode Number (Show)" (with or without the season number) runs into the problem of creating a WP:MISPLACED situation. Also see Talk:Episode 1 (Primeval season 1). * Pppery * it has begun... 00:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's enough traction, I could certainly back a combination of "Show episode Number" (#1) and/or "Show season Season episode Number" (#2), with the latter as a backup option. All of the above could be listed as 30 Rock season 2 episode 10 (or 30 Rock episode 31), EastEnders episode 4466, Twin Peaks episode 14 and Humans series 1 episode 1 (or Humans episode 1). As you yourself noted at the RM, this conforms with season pages, such as Game of Thrones season 8. The question is, when would we differentiate between #1 and #2? i.e. Would we use 30 Rock season 2 episode 10 or 30 Rock episode 31, and would we use Humans series 1 episode 1 or Humans episode 1? -- Alex_21 TALK 01:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are we creating more problems for ourselves by trying to find our own numbering systems? Using the 30 Rock example, we shouldn't be choosing between "season 2 episode 10" (which is WP:OVERPRECISION) and "episode 31" (which basically nobody uses) when the numbering system across sources makes it clear it is number 210. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain how the casual reader can differentiate between Episode 210 (which is not the 210th episode) and Episode 4466 (which is the 4466th episode)? -- Alex_21 TALK 01:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's important that readers can identify which specific numbering sequence is used for a given show from the title alone. What matters is that they can identify it within the format used by that show (which is why I'd support requiring titles to disambiguate the show). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's very important that we make this site as accessible to reads as possible. Also note, that this discussion concerns episodes without a title - Episode 1 is not a title, it's a determiner. Just as "Season 8" is not a title for Game of Thrones, "Episode 1" is not a title for Twin Peaks, it's just a determiner as to where the media is within the series.
    We also do not necessarily title articles per any offical means within the show; Doctor Who series 15 is Season 2, the two premiere episodes of Inhumans are "Behold... The Inhumans" and "Those Who Would Destroy Us" but we title it Inhumans premiere - I could think of more if I had more time. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    this discussion concerns episodes without a title – but that was my main point earlier, how do we know it's not an official title? Since episodes (unlike seasons) are typically assigned specific titles, it's entirely possible that a numerical title could be what the creators assigned. And your point about Twin Peaks is fascinating, because that's an example of how a strict rule (instead of following the sources) could trip up readers. "Episode 1" of that show is actually the second episode, so a strict rule would dictate that we call that Twin Peaks episode 2 despite the article using a different number. Same with 30 Rock; if we call it 30 Rock episode 31, then we're creating a mismatch between the numbers in the title and the body.
    Your note about Doctor Who and Inhumans is well-taken, and I'm not advocating for blindly following a studio's lead. But they also show why some wiggle room in naming conventions is good. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I'll always agree that wiggle room is good. They are, after all, guidelines and not policies, and they should be applied to the situation however best (for example, 30 Rock, whatever that turns out to be). However, wiggle room in a naming convention requires a base for the naming convention to actually exist, and while the majority may follow one or two suits, there's a lot of outcast articles that don't follow that majority, which is why we should have a written entry on how articles should (not necessarily must) be named, just as we do for season articles. It may only end up being a sentence, but something written is always good to base arguments rather than unspoken standards (and believe me, WP:TV has a lot of them). -- Alex_21 TALK 02:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Revisiting this, but another interesting case that just crossed my mind (from about five years ago) was Episode 100 (American Horror Story). There is no other article titled Episode 100 (disambiguation page), but it was determined that the title must include disambiguation. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The more I ponder this, the more it becomes a solution in search of a problem. The current format is "Episode n (Show)", with "season n" or "series n" added if needed for disambiguation. The source for n is left open based on how a show generally counts its episodes; yes, this means there are some inconsistencies, but the tradeoff is that we can match the sources better instead of creating our own numbering schemes. I would support requiring a disambiguator in all cases (removing all cases of "Episode n" only) as episode numbers are reused even if we don't have another article here reusing those numbers, but aside from that, this format is clear and neutral.
The new options presented here create more problems without a good reason. "Show (episode n)" is particularly bad because the disambiguation term has the exact problem that led to every season article getting moved, but I also disagree with "Show episode n", because we're now asserting "Episode n" cannot be the official title. What if a show's creator or network is deliberately choosing to use those generic titles? We're basically overriding that by saying, "No, that has to be a placeholder or unofficial title." The current format works regardless of whether it is an official title or just a placeholder. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because, per above, it's nine problems in search of a solution. It's clearly a widespread issue, and if you agree that the current unwritten format is "Episode n (Show)", then there are non-guidelined versions that don't follow that. It's why we have guideliens - why do we need a guideline stating that season pages are titled "Show season number"? So that they're all confirmed. The format is clearly not clear if there's (at least) two actives RM's discussing it. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that assessment. There are not 9 unique formats in use; from the way I see it, there are 2:
  • "Episode n", where n is counted based on how other sources count the episodes
    • "Episode n (Show)" and "Episode n (Show season n) are disambiguated forms of the same idea
    • "Episode n.n" / "Episode n.n (Show)" fit this general idea; it's just a different numbering system
  • "Show episode n"
There are no examples of "Show season n episode n" currently used to my knowledge; same for "Show (episode n)". Those are newly created problems. Of the 2 broad formats currently in use, the former is much more common, and as I laid out, I think it's more flexible by working for both "official" and "placeholder" episode counts. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I missed "Season n, Episode n (Show)" – but of the two examples, one was moved away and one was just moved there, so I wouldn't say that's in use. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Use the same style for how we title episodes with names. Or are you (and by "you", I mean, anyone supporting it), going to go over and manually fix every single instance where we automatically handle italicization and manually change it to support this pointless new change? Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that the style for how we title articles on episodes with names does not work well for episodes that don't have names. Episode 4466 and the like fail three of the five criteria for article names. This is a problem that needs to be fixed. How we fix it and who will fix it are problems for later, once we have a consensus on the right solution.--Srleffler (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know if that episode is actually titled "Episode 4466"? Or is this one of the cases where a series legitimately has no episode titles? adamstom97 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it would be nice to be consistent with the season formatting, I do think in most cases that "Episode E" is the actual title of the episode, same as when we get "Chapter E" for episode titles. So in that case the article should be at "Episode E" or, if an article already exists with that name, "Episode E (Series)". If the numbering restarts each season then it should be "Episode E (Series season S)". If there is genuinely no title for the episode and its number is being used instead, I would support "Series episode E" or "Series season S episode E", but I think that is going to be rare. Any of the other variations mentioned above (i.e. "Episode SE", "Episode S.E") should be avoided unless that is actually what the episode is called. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to allowing any articles titled simply "Episode x". Such titles are too generic; they are inherently ambiguous. If an episode doesn't have a title and is being identified solely by a number, we need to put the title of the show in the article title. I recently moved a bunch of articles with titles in this form, including Episode 4466, but was mass-reverted by user:DaniloDaysOfOurLives. I don't think we should prescribe the form of the episode numbering. I think it is sensible to follow reliable sources and use either continuous numbering like episode 4466 or seasonal numbering like episode 210. The body of the article should make it clear how to interpret the number. Stylistically, I prefer the form "Series name episode x" as consistent with Wikipedia naming policy. With a consensus behind it, though, there would be an advantage to the community adopting the form "Episode x (Series name)" in that this is the form that is required when the article title is actually ambiguous with another article. Making the title format for numbered episodes consistent with the format for ambiguous episode titles might be clearer to the readers, and makes things slightly easier for editors as well. If you're creating an article on episode 15 of your favorite new show, you don't have to worry about whether some other show already has an article on its episode 15. Your article could be "Episode 15 (Show title)" regardless.--Srleffler (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this issue: There is a recent consensus against having disambiguation pages of the form "Episode x", at least for , and all such pages have been deleted. --Srleffler (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Options

[edit]

We have more options for a guideline than are shown in the table above. Here is an attempt to summarize the options so people can !vote on which they prefer.

--Srleffler (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2B and 2A both seem like good options to me. 2B (Show episode x) is the most human-readable. 2A (Episode x (show)) essentially treats such titles as ambiguous, even if no other episode x article currently exists. This has the advantage of being an already-familiar title format on Wikipedia, and doesn't require renaming when editors create articles on episode x of other shows.--Srleffler (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the episode is titled "Episode 1.8", "Episode 14", etc. then I support Option 2A. This aligns with current naming conventions for episode titles, though it is a bit stricter in that it ensures a series title is provided in parentheses even if there is no other article with the same name. I think this is helpful and should alleviate the concerns about naming criteria expressed above. If the episode legitimately has no title, as appears to be the case with the 30 Rock example, then I support aligning the formatting to the season article convention: "Show season Number episode Number", e.g. 30 Rock season 2 episode 10, or in some cases "Show episode Number" (Option 3E). If others agree, I would suggest adding wording along these lines to the "Episode and character articles" section of this guideline: Where the title of an episode is in the form "Episode 1", "Episode 1.1", "Chapter 1", or similar, default to including the series name as disambiguation--even if there are no other articles with the same name--to avoid confusion, i.e. Episode 1 (Baby Reindeer). If the episode has no title and is generally referred to as the Xth episode of the series, follow the format of season article titles as appropriate, e.g. 30 Rock season 2 episode 10 or Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu episode 1. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify on the 30 Rock example: The writers stopped writing their own titles for episodes when they went on strike (source), but that doesn't mean the episode is untitled; the official title just recycled the production code. (I tried to revise the article to remove some of the details that might be misleading here.) I can't find a single source that says the episode has no title, while there are plenty that call it "Episode 210". Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu is a bit murkier; IMDb lists "Episode #1.1", while the episode on YouTube is called "1. Bölüm" ("Episode 1"). But in this case, I'd be inclined to just use what the official release says. Again, I don't see sources that say it has no title, and it's really hard for us to prove something like that. Hence why I think 2B could get messy. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel I should clarify – not trying to single you out, just trying to address the wording presented here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are sources for it actually being titled "Episode 210" then I would support Option 2A for that article as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2A, with the following caveats: (a) the show must always be disambiguated even if there is no other episode article with that number, and (b) any season disambiguation goes next to the show (i.e., Episode 1 (Humans series 1), not Series 1, Episode 1 (Humans)). This aligns best with the most widespread current practices and other episode titles. 2B is an okay sentiment, but I think it would lead to too many arguments as to whether a title is "official" or just shorthand; better to use 2A, which works in any case. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Adamstom.97's response - Adam said everything I agree with: go with option 2A in most cases with series disambiguation always used. And in special instances like the 30 Rock case, use the "Show season Number episode Number"/option 3E approach. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2A has brevity and clarity advantages that work for me. Regardless of the approach, the guideline should defer to the policy WP:COMMONNAME, so we won't achieve perfect consistency. I continue to feel, for instance, that "Episode 210" is the common name for the 30 Rock episode. I'd support Episode 210 (30 Rock) over the given 2A example Season 2, episode 10 (30 Rock or the A97 version Episode 10 (30 Rock season 2). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2A. Keep it consistent with every other episode page titles. This will also mean we don't have to modify any automatic tools (which we have and are a pain to modify for exceptions for no real benefit). --Gonnym (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]

We seem to have consensus on including the show name in the article title if the episode is identified by a number, and everyone who contributed in the Options section expressed some degree of support for option 2A. We don't seem to have consensus on how to handle cases where it is desirable to include the season number in the title. Perhaps we can mandate the parts we agree on and leave the rest open for now. How about the following:

If an episode is commonly identified by a number, include the show name in the article title. In most cases this can be done by putting the show name in parentheses at the end. Follow a consistent numbering and naming scheme for all episodes of a show.

Examples:

--Srleffler (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have included an example in the "Show season Number episode Number" format as well, but I don't have a link to any article that currently uses that form for its title.--Srleffler (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose creating WP:MISPLACED titles under pretty much any circumstances. Surely we can do this without resorting to using parentheses for a task other than disambiguating from other articles. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That essay seems to be making up rules where they don't exist. If there is clear consensus that a title violates the naming criteria and requires clarification, despite no other article existing with the same title, then we should do so and not let some made up bureaucracy stop us. I do think any wording we add to the article should make it clear that we aren't treating these articles any differently from normal, other than requiring the series name. So Episode 14 (Twin Peaks) is like that because the episode is called "Episode 14" and it is part of the series Twin Peaks. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That essay actually supports what we are doing here. Read down to the section "Other exceptions", where it says "Some topic-specific naming conventions expressly call for the use of parenthetical disambiguators even when the base name is not ambiguous, forming exceptions to normal article title policy by consensus.". That is exactly what we are doing in this case. It gives the example M-185 (Michigan highway) where the base name is not ambiguous but a parenthetical qualifier was used by consensus. --Srleffler (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would omit the 30 Rock example for now since there is a move discussion that may reach consensus based on how this discussion goes – best to avoid any circular logic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out, for now. If there are other examples of a series or season number being used in the article title of an untitled episode we could use it.--Srleffler (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with this. I've just come from an RM where an editor claims that Sermon on the 'Mount and Sermon on the Mount are distinguishable enough, and that the former shouldn't be at Sermon on the 'Mount (South Park) because the disambiguation is not required; I've just made the same argument where I've noticed that people prioritize short titles over clear titles; this does not help the average reader. Including disambiguation automatically for titles such as this provides clarity over consistency. As already pointed out, this is supported by MISPLACED. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry... only seeing this now. Wanted to comment on two things:
  1. First, let's highlight that if 2A were chosen, it needs to be clear given how we do capitalization that Season 2, Episode 10 (30 Rock) does not work. It would need to be Season 2, episode 10 (30 Rock); i.e. lowercase that E, baby, because "episode" is not a proper noun. We need to be really clear about this because people love to do German "capitalize-all-nouns", especially if something is subbing as a title. But it's not a title in this case: it's a description, so it doesn't get title case.
  2. Then there's the overall issue that this doesn't match our newer natural language disambiguation for series' titles (e.g. The Americans season 1). If we're going to go through the work of renaming a gazillion articles, then "[Show] [episode number]" is a better fit with that, so Neighbours episode 8055. And "[Show] [season/series].[number]" for shows with defined seasons/series, so "Secret Diary of a Call Girl episode 1.8" or "Twin Peaks episode 2.7"
The advantage with this format is WP:NATURAL is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation—the main reason, I believe, we went with "Show season/series number" for show titles. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention

[edit]

Why should we use (TV series) instead of (anime) for Japanese animation, where the latter is more known for being one for this MoS? This is the same case as with South Korean series when they're more known as drama. Has there been RfC regarding this? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]