There is
consensus in favor of option 2
.
Some editors raised concerns that this RFC is invalid because of a weak consensus on
a previous one
: I do not believe such an argument holds in this case. To my knowledge, the previous close has not been disputed and subsequently reverted, nor were a significant number of participants in this RFC raising such a concern. Thus, it is understood that the community, either explicitly or implicitly, agree with the closure of the aforementioned thread.? ♠
Ixtal
(
T
/
C
)
?
Non nobis solum
.
♠ 22:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
[
reply
]
Addendum:
Concerns were raised below about my close and a number of editors expressed a wish for me to expand further upon it. I will say that I do not believe in explicitly saying "strong consensus" over just "consensus": if the result is the same such an adjective is redundant. I believe that each discussion merits a different bar upon which one must determine its consensus and a closer should specify only if that bar is met (alongside any explanation required). Due to the large number of articles this change would affect just a weak or simple consensus in favor of option 2 would not satisfy the bar needed to close in its favor. I found there was strong consensus in favor of option 2 and that the consensus met what I considered was the bar to find in its favor. Thus, "strong consensus" would be equal to saying "consensus".
I will now describe the various issues that were explicitly raised with my closure before detailing the PAGs through which I determined this consensus. Firstly, I note that while
Polling is not a substitute for discussion
, when equally reasonable views of applicable policy contradict each other a closer must look to
which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it
. Secondly, it is not necessary for editors to find the status quo violates any PAGs or is inherently bad for them to change it if they believe the change will result in a better guideline. Thirdly, as I mention above, I do not see enough merit in the claim that the RFC below is invalid. Comments that participants were misled about the previous discussion's consensus, that said discussion not being an RFC disqualifies this result, or the previous discussion was itself invalid are incorrect based on my reading of both discussions. I find that the partipants in this RFC believe both that the previous discussion's close is appropriate, that this RFC is a natural consequence of that discussion, and that this RFC is well-formed.
The discussion essentially broke down to supporters of option 1 (use of comma), option 2 (use of space), and preserving the status quo. A negligible proportion of participants supported options 3 and 4 as their primary choice. I thus proceeded first to determine whether there was consensus in favor of options 1
or
2 or in favor of the status quo, as consensus in favor of the status quo here
would override
consensus in favor of a change in the previous discussion.
Editors in favor of the status quo raised the point that parentheses are used for
disambiguation
and thus applicable to the article titles of television series. However, disambiguations are meant for
when a potential article title is ambiguous
. Editors against the status quo successfully argued that television series are discrete and sufficiently differentiated topics so as to not be ambiguous. Thus, I discounted the argument based on disambiguation. Editors in favor of the status quo also claimed those against were voting based on
WP:ILIKEIT
. I will remind editors that said essay refers to the relationship between subjective opinion and the inclusion of content on the wiki based on
WP:Verifiability
not
to subjective voting on the style of Wikipedia. Not only this, but I did not find that arguments against the status quo were based mostly or partially on subjective preference. Furthermore, arguments that only mention an option being liked/disliked/preferred were not discarded just because: I discarded them
iff
I could not see a parallel to our
criteria for article titles
which includes "Naturalness". Finally, editors in favor of the status quo raised issues with the options presented. Editors against the status quo saw them as reasons why one option should be chosen over another, not as issues that prevented them from choosing any of them. Thus, this argument was not strong enough to determine a consensus in favor of the status quo.
A number of arguments were presented in favor of option 1. These included having some punctuation being necessary for clarity purposes and readability. Similarly, a number of arguments were presented in favor of option 2. These included similar concerns for clarity, the use of italics to distinguish titles of television shows (see
MOS:NAT
), and a majority sources using no punctuation. Thus, option 1 supporters presented very similar, if weaker, arguments compared to option 2 supporters. This combined with the fact that option 2 supporters outnumbered option 1 supporters by over three times, I found
strong consensus in favor of option 2
.
Editors that feel so inclined are welcome to contest this close by appealing at
WP:AN
.
? ♠
Ixtal
(
T
/
C
)
?
Non nobis solum
.
♠ 19:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
[
reply
]
There is a rough consensus (see the RfC a few thread above this one) to change away from this, but not yet a consensus on what to replace it with.
???
SMcCandlish
☏
¢
????
21:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
[
reply
]
I suppose another option could be added, but I don't recall any others (dashes? maybe?) from the earlier discussion round. PS: This RfC was workshopped a bit in user-talk, with participants from the first RfC and its closer.
???
SMcCandlish
☏
¢
????
21:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
[
reply
]
The discussion above is closed.
Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.