Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

What is the appropriate titling scheme for articles on television stations in Argentina outside of Buenos Aires? Raymie (t • c) 05:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

Our articles on television stations in regional Argentina have disparate and inconsistent titles.

A fair number are "article — location", such as Channel 6 – Bariloche. A few are more compliant with disambiguation styles on enwiki, such as Channel 7 (Bahía Blanca, Argentina), as the result of moves. There are two stations where a call sign is the title—LT 83 TV and LW 83 TV—and one article at the station's brand name, Telefe Rosario.

In eswiki—where the articles are more current and maintained, and there are quite a few more of them to boot—there is similarly a disparity. Most articles are titled with parenthetical disambiguators, like es:Canal 7 (Bahía Blanca). All of Telefe's owned-and-operated regional stations are at brand name titles (like the aforementioned es:Telefe Rosario), which is not matched by any of the other articles in the field. None have call sign titles.

While I would normally go for a call sign title—at least all the stations have them—it's evident that call signs do not have the WP:COMMONNAME weight in Argentina that they do in the US or Canada. The Buenos Aires titles should remain at network name, as I have advocated for in past RMs.

Worth noting here too is that in the case of Telefe, the change from channel number branding, made in 2018 across its owned stations, also is a provision for the coming digital television transition (slated for 2021). ISDB-T countries like Argentina don't really make use of virtual channels, so historic brands like "Channel 8" will end up having to adapt.

What should article titles use: a call sign, a brand name, channel/disambiguator, or a mix (particularly with regard to the Telefe stations)? I've added a table below to help gauge the options. It's worth noting that some new digital TV licenses seem not to get call signs assigned to them at all, and even a few of the articles eswiki has that we do not lack matching call letters in ENACOM's databases.

Discussion

• Change all to Channel X (Location), except for the ones owned by Telefé, which should stay as Telefé Location, as Telefe Rosario is. I'm from Argentina, call signs aren't used as a commons means of identification. Telefe is the common name for all its media, as it has different channel numbers depending on where it's from, and the Telefe channels are the only ones of those whose name isn't a number. El Millo (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Facu-el Millo, this is what I'm leaning toward myself after looking at quite a few sources and how these names are written. Telefe definitely made a bold move for Argentina dropping channel number branding. Raymie (t • c) 06:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the revised text at User:Sammi Brie/NCBC be adopted as an update to this guideline? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

The most succinct explanation of what this rewrite does is also included as a statement of purpose comment in the proposal:

This proposal has been made with these goals in mind:

• Bring the network/channel/station terminology, which impacts especially categories and disambiguators, to vastly improve consistency and update it to align with today's media realities.
• Create a single source of truth, especially on the radio stations side where guidelines on the project page cover some different material.
• Enshrine several large RMs and RfCs of the last three years, particularly pertaining to disambiguation concision and completeness, to bring this guideline in line with the Manual of Style.
• Use cleaner, more internationalizable text, so as to make the page less reliant on the US and to aid non-topic editors who may not be familiar with the detail-oriented call sign titling environment.

The vast majority of pages won't move, and most of the moves will be of disambiguated pages and categories.

The first bullet point is something that has aggravated me. We have inconsistency in definitions used in disambiguation, exacerbated by a really fast-moving media landscape. This is a bit more acute with the United States because of metonymy issues around "channel" versus "network"; see TNT (American TV network) and TBS (American TV channel), articles on topics that common sense would dictate should have the same disambiguation terms. The network-channel-station table was previously submitted for comment to WikiProject Radio Stations and the Television stations task force, and the revised text as a whole also received one change suggestion in the process (an update for Canada).

As one of the most active editors in the topic area, I've noticed in the last few years that several MOS guidelines do not neatly match up with recommendations in the naming conventions, especially around disambiguators. This rewrite fixes that (bringing NCBC in line with MOS) and incorporates several pieces of precedent that have accumulated since 2019. It also aims to increase clarity for non-topic readers, which is particularly important as we have some of the most detail-oriented naming areas on the whole encyclopedia, and bring in more non-US/Canada examples. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• No to adoption in toto. There are simply too many proposed changes to fairly consider an entire rewrite and fundamental paradigm shift to the guideline, and I'm surprised you'd suggest it. This is not a format suitable for an RfC in its present form. I would encourage withdrawal and instead propose section-by-section, changes so we can discuss and evaluate in a more systematic manner. At this time I'm not going to address specific items I agree or disagree with. -- Netoholic @ 03:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Times have changed, and with the addition of articles pertaining to TV stations, channels and networks throughout the world under the scope of TVS, it is no longer North American-centric. It never should have been North American-centric in the first place. Let's get this all straightened out now. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 04:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: this modernises the guideline, which is meant to describe common practice, not prescribe it. Many points, such as the "(streaming service)" disambiguator section, are obvious and uncontroversial. I agree with all those that are not, such as abolishing this strange U.S.-centric "network"/"channel" distinction, and reinforcing that WP:NATURALDAB is expected in this topic area. Sammi Brie is extremely experienced and informed in this topic area and, I would argue, the best person to be making these suggestions to guide the direction of behind-the-scenes pages towards correct practice. — Bilorv (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing "U.S.-centric" here because in every region there clearly is a semantic distinction between a network and a channel, and OP's proposal abolishes only (TV network), which is the exact opposite of the correct handling. Channels (i.e. virtual numbers on a pay TV service) are not what we write our articles about; they are written about the business entity - the network that produces/arranges that content into a distributable stream of content - and it follows that we should be naming our articles likewise. The other use for "channel" (meaning assigned frequencies for a broadcast station) is similar, in that we write articles about the business entity - the broadcast station in those cases - and we already have good naming conventions for those. Your other point about NATURALDAB is moot as the current version encourages that already. Is there some set of articles you think is named incorrectly under the long-term version of NCBC? Also, if you believe that the current NCBC is US-centric, then surely we must WP:RETAIN the current guideline handling in at least that region, right? -- Netoholic @ 07:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the disambiguation section that favors WP:CONCISE over WP:CONSISTENT. The disambiguation, in part, is in place so editors can find something they are looking for fast and that without even knowing if it exists, they know what it should be called. Disney Junior (Canadian TV channel) is similar to all other items (specifically in this case, television) which have the country-adjective and the type, while Disney Junior (Canadia) is neither the adjective nor the type. I can't comment on the rest as I'm not really sure what else changed. It would have been easier for me to comment on a case by case bases. That said, I'm sure Sammi did a great job as they've done with the recent infobox work. --Gonnym (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nothing in the proposal seems particularly objectionable to me. The disambiguators seem reasonable (and I'm sure the old ones will still be redirects), the distinctions between networks, channels, and stations are much more clear, the name change rules finally make sense and align with wider the understanding of WP:NOPAGE, etc. I think this is a thorough proposal (and rather detailed), but it certainly has consensus for a lot of it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• @Sammi Brie: - your rationale for proposing this change includes the claim that it is "bringing NCBC in line with MOS". I've looked at the entirety of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, and find that universally uses "network", not "channel". Is there some other MOS you are referring to? -- Netoholic @ 07:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Netoholic, most of the changes that I note in terms of MOS are in the back half of the proposal. They come from Wikipedia:Article titles, which isn't part of MOS technically but is a policy on this wiki and has some MOS-prefixed shortcuts pointing to it. I'm also going to spend some time here responding to your ocmments to Bilorv above.

  Disambiguation concision

  Right now, we have articles in certain bunches that have wordier disambiguators than necessary (see WP:PRECISION and WP:TITLEDAB which are back-to-back sections of the same page). For instance, there are 15 disambiguated articles on TV channels named Disney Junior. All of them are named Disney Junior (X TV channel), though there is no other item titled Disney Junior that requires disambiguation (there's a stage show whose name is naturally disambiguated), so these should really have titles in the form of Disney Junior (X), e.g. "Disney Junior (Poland)" instead of "Disney Junior (Polish TV channel)". If one can reasonably expect that every parenthetically disambiguated page with the same base title, like Disney Junior or TVN, is a television channel, the first disambiguation should be by country. Of course, it's also the case that some disambiguated titles are needed to distinguish by type or by nationality and type (e.g. National Geographic (American TV channel), which has to be differentiated from the PRIMARYTOPIC magazine and other TV services with the same name).

  Disambiguation precision

  In 2019, after an article I wrote titled "KXBR (defunct)" came to DYK, I was advised that the disambiguator did not meet PRECISION. However, we had some 100 articles in radio and TV stations with that title. That led to a series of RMs to move all of those pages, as well as an essay at User:Sammi Brie/Radio naming that establishes the priority order for disambiguating call sign-titled broadcast stations (which was used in the final titles of the pages moved by RM and in several new page creations since). The latter is incorporated into the rewrite.

  The "(streaming service)" disambiguator also is probably more precise than "(service)" on some of the pages using it, like Stan (service) and Crackle (service). "Streaming service" is enough of a term of art that it is a more appropriate disambiguator.

  MOS:TV?

  I suspect MOS:TV was written with an eye to the current NCBC, which does prescribe "network" in this form.

  Incorrectly named pages?

  In 2018, Category:Television channel articles with incorrect naming style was created. It contains titles that are either disambiguated concisely (Channel 1 (Syria)) or use "channel" (Kanal 5 (Danish TV channel)). There's also Score (television), a part-time channel that probably should be disambiguated as one (an RM for another time). Most of these pages would not be incorrectly named, except for some Disney Junior-type cases, if the reformed NCBC were enacted.

  Abolishing "TV network"?

  That's not what this proposal does. There are, of course, entities that are best described as TV networks: in addition to the given examples, I offer NET (Indonesian TV network), TV5 (Philippine TV network), Charge! (TV network), etc. Their titles won't change. These entities meet the definition in the box:

  • Distributes programming to a network of stations, either owned-and-operated by the network or affiliated and owned by a third party.
  • May have windows in its program lineup for regional programming.
  • Historically owned or owns a transmitter network with national coverage.

I hope this reply provides enough detail to address your concerns. I understand why there is pushback in terms of US titling, but I feel like your characterization of the term "channel" as referring only to channel numbers is incorrect. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"These services don't meet any of those bullet points" - then your bullet points clearly need more work, as do your examples, because several people participating in this discussion are under the impression that you are wanting to abolish (TV network). I maintain that your examples relating to pay cable services are, more often than not, more correctly identified as "networks". Only in rare cases is "channel" appropriate, and those cases are already covered in the long-term NCBC version. Any problems you see related to consistency are better resolved via BOLD moves or RMs. -- Netoholic @ 02:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]