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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Vikings (TV documentary series) → Vikings (documentary) – Much more concise disambiguator, and we have no other articles on documentaries by the name, so it’s WP:PRECISE enough. Also, the current disambiguator just seems awkward. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See alternative proposed below. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Talk:Vikings (TV series)#Requested move 19 December 2017 -- Alex^TW 09:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This has come up again. It is TV, not film, not straight to DVD orother media.REVUpminster (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite sure how that’s relevant if dropping the medium makes it, per WP:AT, precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose WP:NCTV. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• How about Vikings (miniseries), then? Per NCTV, For the special case of episodic television known as "miniseries", when disambiguation is required, use: (miniseries) or (serial) according to common usage in the originating country. I thought “documentary” would be a reasonable exception along the lines of “game show” or “talk show” and per WP’s naming criteria, but “miniseries” is endorsed by NCTV, if that’s what’s necessary here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a miniseries. --woodensuperman 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s three episodes long. That’s pretty mini. Certainly not a full-length series. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per everyone above. –Davey2010^Talk 14:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, but article does need to be brought in line with WP:NCTV, which it does not currently. It needs to either move to Vikings (UK TV series) or Vikings (2012 TV series) per WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation. --woodensuperman 15:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either of the proposed alternatives. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and move instead to Vikings (2012 TV series) per WP:NCTV. -- Netoholic @ 05:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just a note that I’ve re-requested “2013 TV series” for the other Vikings. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the previously cited RM. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is some support here for a move to Vikings (2012 TV series), which is more in line with WP:NCTV. Does anyone have reason to oppose this alternative? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only two editors have supported that, one of those as an alternative. This was also the proposal at the recently closed RM discussion and it was rejected there. You're trying to achieve the result you want by having two separate RM discussions and that rarely works. It's also not appropriate to change the entire RM when there has been a substantial response. If you're withdrawing the original suggestion then the RM should close as a matter of procedure. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m willing to open it as a new RM (and ping this one’s participants) if that would be best. I didn’t see much discussion of this page’s title at the combined RM, except to say it should be renamed regardless of whether the other TV series was. I figure it deserves to be considered on its own merits. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other RM proposed moving this page and 8 of the 11 (including the nominator) participants opposed that proposal. Only one of the supporters actually said anything other than "Support per nom". What you're doing by separating the two articles into two RMs is trying to achieve a Fait accompli. If this article is moved then you can try to get the other moved. There should only be one RM for both. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belated reply: I solemnly swear to make no further efforts on the other article. If that series is considered primary for partial disambiguation (even if I disagree), that remains the case no matter this title. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2018 (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.

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Summing up the supporting and opposing side arguments; there is no consensus for move and repeated Move Request within short period of time after clear opposition can bee seen as disruptive editing. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Vikings (TV documentary series) → Vikings (2012 TV series) – Per WP:NCTV and the consensus at a recent village pump discussion. There was some support for this in the above RM, from both User:Woodensuperman and User:Netoholic. This move was previously proposed in a combined RM alongside further disambiguation of Vikings (TV series) (which failed), but was never really discussed on its own merits. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC), edited 05:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 19:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A fourth RM in a month for the same subject, with all the previous ones displaying a clear consensus for oppose. This is amazing. Title is fine as in. Guidelines are not policies. -- Alex^TW 07:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if this was a policy, it's still not a hard and fast rule that has to be followed at all costs. We do ignore rules when it makes the encyclopaedia better for the readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Third, actually, for this subject, on the advice of not modifying the prior RM on this page. What, exactly, is your objection to renaming this article? Your only objection on either page was that the other series was primary, which has no bearing here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support currently title does not fit with the WP:NCTV naming convention, yet there is a clear available alternative available as above. Prior falied RMs were a confusing mess of options, tied to other articles, or gave non-guideline suggestions... so its fine to do another that actually proposes something that fits NCTV. -- Netoholic @ 07:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've already said, NCTV is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule that we have to follow at all costs. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s not a reason not to follow it when editors think it makes sense to. WP:IAR isn’t a reason in and of itself. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing you're ignoring is that multiple editors obviously don't think it makes sense to follow NCTV in this case. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I was referring to the comment you were replying to. I assumed you were as well. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this was widely rejected by the vast majority (8 out of 11) of participants at the previous RM and I don't see that anything has changed from that based on the comments made in the subsequent RM discussion. As I've stated previously, despite my support for WP:NCTV I have to point out that there are no hard and fast rules. Occasionally there are situations where common sense has to be applied as there are occasional exceptions (that's right there in the banner at the top of NCTV). In this case the present name seems far more logical than a name disambiguated by year. It's far less confusing for our readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, this wasn’t discussed by the vast majority in the TV series RM. (Should we ping the others from there?) I respect your reasons for an exception to NCTV, but your opening sentence doesn’t seem accurate. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Why doesn't my opening sentence seem accurate? 8 out of 10 responders rejected the nominators proposal. That's a clear majority. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it implies that they specifically rejected this part of that proposal when the rationale had more to do with the other part. That’s the problem with coupling a controversial proposal with one that shouldn’t be. More accurate to say they rejected further dab of the other series. But we can ping them, if you want. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:ATDAB is a policy "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.", WP:NCTV is the project guideline applying WP:ATDAB policy. But the problem here is not really this series, which is disambiguated but the other one which is currently flaunting the project's WP:ATDAB policy. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry let me restate that. This article is not in line with WP:NCTV true, but that is only a guideline as to how to apply the basic policy of WP:AT. The other article however is not in line with WP:AT (due to what looks like a combination of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and supervoting /non-admin close) and that is the one which needs fixing. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:NCTV. --woodensuperman 09:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose again Common sense should apply here to help the casual viewer looking for the documentary and not the fictional drama. If googling this series comes up 5th.REVUpminster (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not a compelling reason to oppose. A lot of series exist with the same title, of various genres. This is what WP:HATNOTES are for. Article names just follow the WP:CRITERIA, which includes being WP:CONSISTENT. That's why we have topic naming conventions like WP:NCTV, under which this falls.. Frankly I'm ready to take this whole discussion to a wider forum because this opposition makes no sense. We could be debating what fitting disambig under the NCTV we should use... we should never be debating using something completely outside that unless there was literally no other option. -- Netoholic @ 12:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  So all viewers who uses Wikipedia should know all the rules. I don't think so. I don't know them and am certainly not going to read them.REVUpminster (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  An admission that you're not reading our guidelines? So then why are you participating in a discussion which hinges on those guidelines? This is all preposterous. -- Netoholic @ 15:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Because guidelines are not solid policies, and sometimes common sense should come into play before we use outdated recommendations (that's all a guideline is). -- Alex^TW 22:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @AlexTheWhovian: If it’s outdated, we can simply update it. Go ahead and make a proposal at WT:NCTV, or try BRD or something. If the guideline is flawed, WP:FIXIT. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  "Outdated" is probably not the best word to use. The guideline doesn't need to be updated. Each guideline includes a prominent banner that says, in part, It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. That provides for situations such as this. However, that a lot of people don't bother reading that, or they don't understand it, and believe that policies and guidelines should be followed to the letter at all times, lest the world will end. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That being the case, Vikings (documentary) should be equally acceptable. Yet you rejected that one without explaining why. Regardless, we can’t just ignore all rules when we feel like it; we need a compelling reason, and I don’t see anything unique to this case that wouldn’t equally apply to many TV/film articles disambiguated by year. What’s different here? Or should we look at revising NCTV to support dab by genre/style? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  you rejected that one without explaining why - I do wish that people supporting these proposals would start actually reading and trying to understand what people write. I said "Oppose per the previously cited RM". At that RM, which you must not have read, I said Despite my support for WP:NCTV I have to point out that there are no hard and fast rules. Occasionally there are situations where common sense has to be applied as there are occasional exceptions (that's right there in the banner at the top of NCTV). In this case the present names seem far more logical than names disambiguated by year. The present names still seem far more logical because "Vikings (TV documentary series)" is far more logical than "Vikings (documentary)". The present name makes it clear that this is a TV documentary series, not a film.

  What’s different here? - Please find another example of a documentary series and a TV series with the same name.

  should we look at revising NCTV to support dab by genre/style? - That's a question to be asked at NCTV, not here. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're looking for another example, try Empire (2012 TV series), against all the other TV series with the same name. --woodensuperman 11:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a good example at all. There are several TV series so they would need disambiguation even if the documentary didn't exist. Here we are looking at one documentary series and one TV series. --AussieLegend (✉)

  No, we're looking at two TV series, one of which is a documentary. --woodensuperman 12:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Sematics. It doesn't change the fact that your example is not the same as the situation here. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  As it's the only documentary TV series among them, the same logic would apply. --woodensuperman 12:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No because, as I already said, there are several TV series so they would need disambiguation even if the documentary didn't exist. There is just one TV series here other than the documentary. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Empire (documentary TV series), Empire (historical drama series), Empire (sitcom), etc. Why this, and why not those? This is not a thing we do, even when it’s down to two. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @AussieLegend? What’s special about this case that we should do something we normally avoid? Besides ignoring the guideline simply because it’s JUSTAGUIDELINE and we can, why should we break with consistency for this particular pair of TV shows when we don’t do so for other pairs? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I have already explained, both here and at the other article, that it's not the best result for our readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @AussieLegend: In all honesty, I think that the type of TV series in the identifiers should only be used if years do not disambiguate well enough. From what I've personally seen, people do not think about what type of genre TV shows are, they usually like to think of it by year. Plus, both shows were released around the same regions (the 2012 series in Ireland and the 2013 series in the UK), and "it's not the best result for our readers" is just an empty, THEYDONTLIKEIT argument. ToThAc (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think most people think of a series by the year in which it was released because most people don't remember when a series was first released. I certainly don't think of the 1978 Battlestar Galactica and the 2004 Battlestar Galactica. I think of them as the original and the new versions. In this case I think of the TV series and the documentaries. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @AussieLegend: If you think we should generally discourage disambiguating by year when we can (which, in all honesty, seems reasonable to me for the reasons you gave), then post here: WT:NCTV and WT:NCF. Otherwise, still not clear on what’s exceptional about this case of two different genres of TV series released in different years across multiple regions, unless you think the guideline that covers exactly that case should be revised. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Given that one series, Vikings (TV series), is a series that has been running over at least 5 years, and could potentially run longer, and this series only lasted 3 episodes it seems useful to put the year in the title of this article to differentiate the series with the much longer longevity from this series. Given that the longer running series is a historical drama and this series is a documentary, it seems that adding documentary to the title of this article is not quite as strong of a differentiator as using longevity. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, that doesn't help our readers much. Presently, it's possible to google "Vikings documentary" and get a link straight to the documentary article. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You lost me. The second sentence is a non sequitur to the first sentence. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I figured out what you meant. You probably meant that the new proposed name does not help the reader much because of an anticipated Google search. I would counter that given that the other series is somewhat of a documentary, it is a historical drama, the person searching "Vikings documentary" may have been more interested in the other series. It's a little tough to anticipate what people will search on. As long as there are hat notes on the two articles with the {{distinguish}} template, it should be easy to navigate and find what the reader is looking for. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  A person searching for "Vikings documentary" would likely be specifically interested in the documentary and they would be pointed here. A link to the drama doesn't even appear in such a search so someone looking for the documentary wouldn't see this article if it moved. Therefore, moving the article doesn't help our readers and doesn't improve the encyclopaedia. It's not a good choice. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Wouldn’t a redirect serve the same function? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're going to provide a redirect then why bother moving the article? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  To fit with the way WIkipedia articles are titled. Because we don’t use disambiguators like “TV documentary series.” Whether we should is a question for WT:NCTV, but at present we simply don’t. But in case you’re not aware, a page move automatically creates a redirect. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as standard operating procedure and per WP:NCTV and WP:CONCISE. PS: The fact that this page has been RMed several times recently without a consensus emerging isn't a rationale to oppose; it's proof we need to resolve this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Kinda neutral, but Oppose THIS MOVE per AlexTheWhovian, AussieLegend, REVU, and others above. Support move to "Vikings (documentary series)" per WP:CONCISE. Can we at least briefly consider that version? Like, no one says "TV documentary series", and not a single other Wikipedia page title does either. "Documentary series" is the most widely recognizable title for this page (heck, I remember this series coming out, and I (like most) wouldn't have been able to guess correctly whether this thing came out in 2012 or 2013). In the words of 67.14.236.50 above, "To fit with the way Wikipedia articles are titled. Because we don’t use disambiguators like “TV documentary series.” Whether we should is a question for WT:NCTV, but at present we simply don't." Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support shortening from the current disambiguator, per my 13 January RM. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a terrible idea, as it puts it even more at odds with the naming guideline. --woodensuperman 13:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Woodensuperman: I respectfully disagree. As the only documentary (of any format) by that name on Wikipedia, and as a series widely known to be a documentary, a disambiguator even of just (documentary) satisfies all of the naming criteria except for consistency (edit: especially now that the other Vikings is disambiguated by year), being more concise and natural than the current dab but equally recognizable. But I suppose it depends on the value one places on consistency (which is the purpose of the NC pages). Including “series” does add a bit of precision at the cost of conciseness, so that’s debatable; I’d vastly prefer the more concise dab, which is precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to "Vikings (documentary series)" - Much clearer and more recognizable than "Vikings (2012 TV series)", which would be confused with Vikings (TV series), which was released one year later. This reminds me of COPS (animated TV series) and Cops (TV series) (well, not that I'm using the other stuff exists argumenting, mind you). George Ho (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to "Vikings (documentary series)", per Paintspot and George Ho, and which seems to me to be the most accurate descriptor. "TV" is not needed, as 'series' implies television. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For whatever it’s worth, the article for the TV drama has been moved to Vikings (2013 TV series) per WP:INCDAB. The primary proposal here would mirror it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we retain “documentary” in the dab here, I propose renaming the other article with some permutation of “TV drama series” to match. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not propose yet another move. The other article has now been renamed in line with our naming conventions, and this is where it should stay. This article also needs to be moved in line with those naming conventions, this whole situation proves exactly why we have them. --woodensuperman 10:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • But if it’s decided that this article should for some reason be an exception to our usual naming conventions, disambiguated by genre rather than year, then so should the other one. I agree with you that using the year would be best, but if one of these two titles can’t be made consistent with the rest of the project, they should at least be made consistent with each other. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is more important that they should be consistent with the naming guideline. We should not be making an exception for either page, but if this one is inexplicably left where it is, that is no reason to move the other article away from the naming guideline. The only solution is to move this article to the one proposed. --woodensuperman 13:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't agree with the closer's comments at the other RM but I agree with Woodensuperman here, in that another RM for the other article would be inappropriate. Now that it's where it is, just leave it there. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's also inappropriate to modify the nomination after so many people have replied to the original nomination.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 12:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I merely gave new information supporting my original rationale, a village pump consensus clearly opposing the use of disambiguators such as “documentary.” If you missed it, the underlined text (default styling for <ins>) clearly marks the edit, and the additional timestamp dates it. If the new information changes your opinion, feel free to amend your vote; otherwise, the existing replies stand with no contextual change. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, you changed the whole context of the nomination. The original nomination was made without anything to do with the VPP discussion because that had not closed 9 days ago when you made the nomination. There were 9 clear !votes after the original nomination was made and they were based on the original nomination, not your modified version. One of the most basic talk page guidelines is that you don't edit your posts after people have replied or, in this case, voted. If you want to add additional context then you do so by adding a comment to the RfC, not by altering the original nomination. Doing that corrupts the nomination and can, in extreme cases, nullify the entire RfC. The closer is not going to be aware of when you changed the nomination unless he decides to go through the entire edit history and when you changed it can affect the entire RfC. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • I was actually unaware of the VPP discussion when I made the request; when I learned of it, I added it as a data point to support my existing rationale. If you feel it somehow alters anyone’s stated rationale here, could you explain how? You’re reacting as if I’d changed the move target, or the underlying ratoinale.
                  As for edit history, just look at the signatures; yes, the closer will be aware of when I changed it, because it says it right there. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to "Vikings (documentary series)" - One of these is a documentary series, while the other is a historical drama. I would argue WP:COMMONNAME here to distinguish between the two. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Proposal to halt any new move requests for at least 3 months... - A fourth RM in a month for the same subject is overkill here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Knowledgekid87: Four RMs? I only count three: last month’s joint request at Talk:Vikings (2013 TV series) (or if you like, Talk:Vikings (drama series)), and two here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That is still too many for an article in that short period of time. Most articles will get a move request like every 3 or so months at a minimum, so the proposal isn't unreasonable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for closer The nominator has twice now change the contents of the nomination without any discussion with other editors here, 9 days after the move request was opened.[2][3] This should be considered when closing this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  not an rfc........... Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming good faith here, I think Aussie meant to type "move request". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. Fixed to avoid confusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I know, I changed it once, and that change is clearly marked. What was the other change you mention? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2018 (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.

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.

Moved. Open for 40 days and relisted 3 times! This debate needs to be closed. See enough support below that is in line with the guideline's community consensus to rename this article as requested. Opposers have generally recognized this as an exception to the guideline; however, I have read through all the previous discussions and see no further reason to call the targeting title a valid exception to our guideline. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy New Year! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  14:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

Vikings (TV documentary series) → Vikings (2012 TV series) – Per WP:NCTV and WP:CONSISTENCY. Per WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation, genre should only be used if year and/or country is insufficient. This is not the case here. --woodensuperman 13:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. SITH (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Haven't we been through this before? Oh yes, four times (see above). --AussieLegend (✉) 13:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only twice for this specific title, the most recent of which resulted in no consensus. --woodensuperman 09:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not actually true is it? There are two RMs on this page and Talk:Vikings (2013 TV series)#Requested move 19 December 2017 specifically suggested this article be moved to Vikings (2012 TV series). That's 3 of the 4 that suggest moving this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is true. You're quite wrong I'm afraid. There's only one other on this page for this title, the other was an aborted discussion for something even less appropriate than what we have currently. So that's two. One here, and the one at Talk:Vikings (2013 TV series)#Requested move 19 December 2017. Not four. --woodensuperman 16:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • That the nominator withdrew his nomination doesn't mean it never happened. It still garnered several responses so there are still three discussions specifically regarding this article and four in total, as anyone who reads the page can see, whether you like it or not. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was to a completely different title. Stop being so disingenuous. --woodensuperman 17:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Pointing out that there have been multiple discussions, regardless of the suggested destination, is not being disingenuous, it's pointing out facts, whether you like it or not. That we had so many discussions in a very short time no doubt affected the outcome of those discussions. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as per WP:NCTV. There is absolutely no good reason for this not to be at a standard title – we can handle any confusion with hatnotes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:NCTV. -- Netoholic @ 22:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above RM discussions, and documentaries should be labeled 'documentary'. I would go with (documentary series). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they absolutely should not – we do not disambiguate "by genre" under standard WP:NCTV, and there has been consistent opposition to doing so, regardless what happens in this single RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what you said here and here. --woodensuperman 09:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the four exact same previous discussions. Can we get a ban on redundant RMs when there is an overall clear consensus against such a move? -- Alex^TW 00:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has not been "clear consensus against such a move" – that's a clearly an incorrect statement. What can be said, accurately, is there is "no consensus demonstrated in favor of such a move". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there have not been four discussions about this title, only two. Enough time has passed to revisit this. The current title sticks out like a sore thumb. WP:CONSISTENCY is POLICY. --woodensuperman 09:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I wrote above, that's not true. Three of the four discussions addressed this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you wrongly asserted above, you mean. There are not four, not three, but two prior discussions for this title. --woodensuperman 16:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and WP:NCTV. --Gonnym (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose original proposal (probably again) - I still don't know why the year is to be used. I still don't see it as helpful to readers searching for the specific topic. And NCTV is a guideline, which is somewhat misunderstood and per WP:GUIDES should be treated with common sense, especially when there are some exceptions. If "TV documentary series" is less than desirable, what about "(docuseries)"? It's concise and easy to understand, right? George Ho (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the sensible alternative proposal is Vikings (UK TV series), which both follows WP:NCTV and uniquely identifies the series, because the scripted 2013 Vikings TV series is an Irish-Canadian co-production. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes more sense than "2012" also. George Ho (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support also Vikings (UK TV series). Even more-so than the year option. --Gonnym (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I support either Vikings (2012 TV series) or Vikings (UK TV series) – either is an acceptable outcome. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm okay with Vikings (UK TV series) too, this brings it in line with the relevant naming convention. And we can have redirects from any of the other options. --woodensuperman 09:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (UK TV series), as the drama series is filmed in Ireland, and as the UK comprises Northern Ireland, which itself is in the island of Ireland, there's enough disambiguity to not support it. -- Alex^TW 02:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vikings (2013 TV series) is filmed in the Republic of Ireland, which is not Northern Ireland, and not in the UK. This is like saying that Vikings (Australian TV series) would be ambiguous if something else was filmed in New Zealand. And of course, where something is filmed actually has no bearing on the nationality we would choose for the disambiguator anyway. --woodensuperman 10:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grasping at straws. I was not aware that "New Zealand" had the word "Australia" in it - can you point me to where? And it certainly does, and I can provide an example - Riverdale (2017 TV series) was moved to its current location with the reasoning the 2017 series is filmed in Canada, so year disambiguation is less ambiguous, to disambiguate from Riverdale (1997 TV series), which is a Canadian series. -- Alex^TW 11:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you're the one grasping at straws with the strangest logic I've ever seen. Can you point me to where "UK" has the word "Republic of Ireland" in it? Why would anyone think that something with the disambiguator "UK" might in fact be Irish instead? --woodensuperman 12:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are both connected to Ireland, and thus there is not enough separation to title it "UK". And certainly: The United Kingdom, officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but more commonly known as the UK. There's the word "Ireland", directly as requested. Then, given your change of heart, can you show me where the phrase "Republic of Ireland" is in either Vikings article? I certainly can't see it. Also, can you explain the "no bearing" when the given example proves that as clearly false? -- Alex^TW 12:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But we're getting sidetracked. Vikings (2013 TV series) is a Canadian-Irish co-production, therefore not a UK production, therefore Vikings (UK TV series) is NOT ambiguous, as it cannot in any way apply to the former. --woodensuperman 12:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both are related to the UK and Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland is not included in either article, thus there's not enough disambiguation, in my opinion. Still no comment on Riverdale. -- Alex^TW 12:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is Vikings (2013 TV series) related to the UK? How is this article related to Ireland? You seem to be getting political and geographical meanings of "Ireland" confused. Click on the link for Ireland in the lede at Vikings (2013 TV series) and you'll see where "Republic of Ireland" is mentioned. And Riverdale is a separate case, but I see the point where year is more appropriate there. If there wasn't such ridiculous objection to moving this article in line with our guidelines, it could easily be sitting at the year and we wouldn't need this pointless discussion. --woodensuperman 12:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the link for Ireland in the lede at Vikings (2013 TV series) and you'll see where it's mentioned. Sorry, I wasn't aware that Republic of Ireland and Vikings (2013 TV series) were the same article. As they are not, the Republic of Ireland is still not included in either article. If there wasn't such a ridiculous attempt to force moving this article in line guidelines that are just that - guidelines and not policies - then I agree that we wouldn't need this pointless discussion four times over, as there is clear disagreement over where it should be. -- Alex^TW 12:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSISTENCY is policy. The naming guideline documents how to implement that policy. --woodensuperman 12:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite which part of the policy you are quoting. -- Alex^TW 12:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course: "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above." --woodensuperman 12:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very next line: These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus. -- Alex^TW 12:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodensuperman: Any comment? -- Alex^TW 23:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer instead – there has never been a legitimate policy-based argument made why this article should be at a non-standard title. Either Vikings (2012 TV series) or Vikings (UK TV series) are perfectly acceptable options under WP:NCTV, and the article should be moved to either. (Hatnotes can easily deal with any lingering confusion...) OTOH, I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make, but it seems to be that for any situation in which there were two TV series with the same title produced in both the UK and Ireland, then "by country" disambiguation is not allowed (because, Northern Ireland, like, exists?!)?... I don't think you will get very far with that argument at all if you try to make it at WT:NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting note: this needs more discussion. Currently there seems to be no consensus but considering the number of RMs this has been given it'd be good to get as much discussion as we can on this to settle it. SITH (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support PDAB. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Vikings (UK TV series) - As the majority appear to be American I feel this one should be under "UK". –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 23:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It survived 5 years saying what it does on the tin.REVUpminster (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Relisting note: I tally four !votes for support original, four !votes for oppose original, one !vote supporting Davey2010's proposal and one !vote opposing it. Per my previous relist, let's try and get a constructive dialogue in this next week in order to forge a lasting consensus for the title of this page. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I counted 5 support for original (nom, IJBall, Netoholic, myself and In ictu oculi), Also, its worth looking into the rational of some of the voters, as they seem pretty hollow. Just to re-confirm my !vote here - I support both move options - Vikings (2012 TV series) and Vikings (UK TV series), as both follow WP:NCTV like so many other articles, while Vikings (TV documentary series) does not. --Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's now 6 support votes, if you count both the Vikings (2012 TV series) and the Vikings (UK TV series) options (plus George Ho, who seemed somewhat supportive of the latter option as well), and I'm pretty sure that none of us 6 would have a problem with either of these two options. As there seems to be slightly stronger support for Vikings (UK TV series), and that that one probably does a better job of differentiating between this TV show and the 2013 scripted TV series, it seems to me that the "most consensus" solution that properly follows the naming guideline is Vikings (UK TV series), and the article should probably just be moved to that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can't use what is effectively a WP:SYNTH type argument to tally votes. There are 4 + the nom supporting the original proposal and 4 supporting "UK TV series". There are 4 opposing the original proposal and one of those specifically opposes "UK TV series". At this time I see a "No consensus" close as the only option. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you didn't acknowledge that support voters are citing established guidelines, while opposes are citing nothing but opinion, seeking an exception to guideline, or are simply objecting based on the prior RMs. -- Netoholic @ 20:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As I've stated at the other RMs, despite my support for WP:NCTV, it is just a guideline, not a hard and fast rule that must be obeyed at all costs. In fact there are no hard and fast rules. Occasionally there are situations where common sense has to be applied as there are occasional exceptions (that's right there in the banner at the top of NCTV). WP:NAMINGCRITERIA is policy and it says that article titles should unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. The current name does exactly that. The proposed names comply with NCTV but do not "unambiguously identify the article's subject". A reader visiting either of those would likely be expecting to find a full TV series, not a documentary series. Disambiguation by year is, at best, confusing. When did the TV series actually start, 2012 or 2013? Most people would not remember this and would have to go to the DAB page first. "UK" doesn't help at all. Most people likely assume that Ireland is part of the UK so "UK TV series" could just as easily apply to the TV series as this documentary series. Looking at the big picture, I firmly believe that this is one of those exceptions where common sense has to be applied. For that reason, I believe that the current name is the best for this article. It complies with the policy in that it unambiguously identifies the article's subject and that seems the best option for our readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most people likely assume that Ireland is part of the UK so "UK TV series" could just as easily apply to the TV series as this documentary series." Seriously?! That's a laughable argument. Again – if "UK" is not enough to distinguish from "Ireland" in terms of disambiguation, then you guys need to make that argument site-wide, as that will affect articles far beyond just WP:NCTV. (Strange that no one has ever seen a groundswell of confusion surrounding this previously! or that no one has objected to this at WT:NCTV before!...) As it stands, there is nothing preventing the use of "UK TV series/programme" vs. "Irish TV series/programme" – in fact, there are already multiple, multiple examples of articles being disambiguated with "UK" vs. "Irish" – just as there is nothing preventing its use in this case. Let's just move this to Vikings (UK TV series), and use a hatnote, as is already done at dozens, if not hundreds, of other articles in exactly the same situation as this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why exactly is it a laughable suggestion given that the very issue of Ireland vs the UK has been raised above? Most people are geographically challenged. Check YouTube and you'll find plenty of examples of Americans who barely know where their own country is, let alone anywhere else. However, that's only one point of my opposition to a move. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's laughable IMO because a disamgiguation scheme that we've been using for upwards of 20 years on this project is suddenly being called into question when no one has noticed it being "a problem" before. I agree with Gonnym above – the opposers here are grasping at straws, defending the current disambiguation scheme when it's completely unnecessary, and when there is absolutely nothing wrong with either "proper" disambiguation method, esp. with the use of a hatnote, which is standard practice in situations like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • a disamgiguation scheme that we've been using for upwards of 20 years on this project - Please don't make me feel older than I am. Wikipedia hasn't existed for "upwards of 20 years". It's existed for less than 18 and WP:TV even less than that, just over 15 apparently. Please don't make things up. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the guidelines NCTV : Additional disambiguation[edit]

When there are two or more television productions of the same type and name, use one of the following methods:

Prefix the country of broadcast (adjective) – (U.S. TV series), (Canadian TV series), (UK TV series). Generally used when shows are distinct primarily due to region, especially used to distinguish regional versions of the same format/premise

They are not the same type of programme. One is historical adventure the other a talking heads documentary.

If the year, country, or a combination of both is still insufficient to disambiguate the topic, an appropriate genre or format word ("animated TV series" or "anime", "telenovela", "soap opera", "sitcom", etc.) can then be considered for use via a page move request.

etc covers everything else you can think of such as TV Documentary. It's is like The Bible after all. REVUpminster (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What that means is that we should check these disambiguation methods first - year: Vikings (2012 TV series), country: Vikings (UK TV series), or combination of both: Vikings (2012 UK TV series) - and only after those, if the title is still unclear, then we could use some alternative. We can sufficiently disambiguate this article using only the year as in the original proposal in this RM. Everything after that is extraneous. -- Netoholic @ 12:54, 1 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.