84:
22:
956:
74:
53:
978:
you need to file an RM to gain consensus for the "finale" title. Where it is currently located does not conform with any other widely-used example, nor is there any support for it at all. I'm happy to do the former part for you. Once the RFC is over, then you can have an even clearer view on whether
487:
You are very clearly ignoring this. Nevertheless, you are edit-warring by moving it back. I do know better, and I'm letting you know how it works. Your creation was controversial, against a widespread guideline where there is no precedence of going against it, and against a very clear consensus.
468:
See above. Reverting to the baseline article title is standard BRD. Honestly, you should have known better with your extendedmover permissions. If a move will be controversial, I know that you know it requires formal consensus and a template to invite wider discussion, not simply pinging others,
787:
exists for a reason. Title
Changes policy requires a consensus; that is what we have here, and consensus does not require unamity. You said you were leaving the discussion; please be consistent with your past replies, and consider this a warning if you continue to edit-war. I have my position
768:
Consensus is based on strength of argument, not on headcount, and as the only one who cited policy, we have no consensus. I can't start a RM for you, but if you change the title with anything short of a formal RM consensus (which is both what the Title
Changes policy requires and a reasonable
513:
If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub. Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be
842:
I don't have this page on my watch list so was surprised this is still going. How is this still an issue Czar? There are 3 editors here who are opposed to your title. en.wiki does not use descriptive titles for episodes. Seeing how we have over 10,600 episode articles that follow this naming
170:, i.e., what reliable sources (see bibliography) call it most often. In this case, they're not calling it "Series Finale Parts 1 & 2" or "whoami and Hello, Elliot" but simply "the Mr. Robot finale". Please discuss here for consensus before unilaterally changing the title.
325:
Nice canvassing. I compiled the sources for this article and I'm telling you that it is far more commonly called the Mr. Robot finale than "Whoami and Hello, Elliot". Not sure why that's so hard to believe, but it's easy to verify. I'm reverting/contesting your edit per
914:
It doesn't matter if you've outlined based on your personal opinion. There is no support, but there is clear consensus against the current title. You went to a wider venue, and got literally the same reply you've gotten thrice here. I can just as easily cite
529:), (3) cited the letter of policy I am using for determining the article's title—policy that unambiguously applies to all of the encyclopedia, not just television episodes, (4) not received a citation when I've asked for where NCTV says otherwise. The
746:- that is most definitely not the case here. If you have decided to leave the discussion, then the consensus becomes solid as the remaining editors all support the move. Note that any attempts to revert the move would be considered edit-warring. --
724:
That quote is very clear about the default title and the steps to establish consensus. This is going in circles. I'm happy to go source-by-source when you open a RM but, forgive me, I'm not going to respond to further requests to repeat myself.
919:
and state that your "policies" do not apply here. After the article is moved to its location of consensus, you are more than welcome to start an RM yourself and actually gain a consensus for "Mr. Robot finale", or you can start a discussion at
900:
That's a mischaracterization. You can keep repeating that there is no "editorial support" but I literally outlined the argument based on policy and sources above. Again, you're welcome to start a RM if you'd like to move the article.
861:, but starting an formal discussion will bring uninvolved editors, particularly those outside the WP:TV area to participate. This is a matter of whether local, unwritten precedent supersedes the quoted, WP-wide Article Titles policy.
642:
Your accusations of canvassing are baseless. Again, I ask, do you, or do you not, recognize that a consensus has been formed against your personal naming schemes, across both articles?? It's a simply yes/no question. Assuming by your
524:
If you want to claim consensus, start a formal discussion and give your argument. As of now, I've (1) actually done the work of writing/expanding the article, (2) explained how sources are actually referring to the subject (i.e., its
1001:
When the RfC ends, yes, you will have a basis in writing for the unwritten precedent you've asserted and can revisit from there. I think my disagreement on your other points has already been talked to death. See you after the RfC.
782:
And you are the only one supporting your case; please state any editorial support you have. In your next reply, I guarantee that you will not be able to. As I've been told, policy is not absolute, so you cannot use that as a case;
424:
Still not seeing where NCTV says that episodes must use the "official name", if you can point it out to me. If it isn't there and you plan to cite it as the guideline, I suggest you add that text so it can be formally challenged.
1272:. The reason why most of those other sources don't mention the official titles is because the official titles were not known until after the episodes were broadcast; those articles were written without that knowledge. Per
1081:
Very disappointing and discourteous that you couldn't even wait for the RfC to end. There's no way I'm editing in this article space for a while, so wanted to cross-post my title research from the RfC for future editors:
614:
Alex, in the case of this article, where you have canvassed two editors and have cited no basis in policy for your position, I think outside voices are needed, hence why I've requested that you initiate a formal
514:
advertised at
Knowledge (XXG):Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Knowledge (XXG).
484:
When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria
950:
is a better solution than the simple, formal move discussion I've requested since the beginning. I can't open that discussion on your behalf because my argument is against it. But I can open a different
398:
czar, your insistence on creating and naming episodes with descriptive or made up names rather than the official title is both disregarding a community-wide naming convention guideline -
698:
If you contest that there is a consensus against you, then please cite editorial support for your edits. If you cannot, then a consensus exists against you, and per your
369:
The article's original title is the baseline, not a "bold" move, since it's impossible to "revert" the article's original title. Any subsequent move is "bold" per BRD.
974:
They were discussing the same topic on the same series, so it's not canvassing. And you seem to have it wrong; this article needs to be moved to its correct location,
1265:
144:
1292:– that's an assumption and an odd one when again, literally every episode article is named after its title. Redirects exists, one can find it by searching for "
1163:
1329:
878:, another editor has also said to stick to the official titles in times of dispute. There is no editorial support for keeping this article where it is. --
134:
625:
Just so I'm clear, do you all share the position that television episode articles must always be titled by their official names rather than by any other
1134:
275:
Those are their official titles, by which no one knows them. The sources refer to this episode almost exclusively as simply the "finale". That's the
1334:
1324:
106:
110:
673:
I've been quite clear: No, I obviously contest that we have consensus and I've already given a reasoned, policy-backed rationale. re: baseless,
622:
DTG, thanks for that quote, but that's not in NCTV, as has been repeatedly linked, and it doesn't say to prefer the episode's official title.
295:
According to... who? You? You've already got consensus against you on the other episode's talk page concerning episode titles with myself,
946:
We've already gone over how the only other participants were specifically canvassed here by you. And it's frankly alarming that you think
769:
request), expect said change to be reverted, citing said policy. Start a RM if you feel so strongly and defend your position with policy.
97:
58:
582:, or character name for which you are trying to create an article, then simply use the name of the subject as the article title (e.g.
875:
1147:
1192:
1155:
1106:
33:
1110:
1278:"There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus"
1122:
303:; the same argument applies here. You're going to have a gain a wider consensus for support for these "common names". --
1159:
1118:
1257:
1151:
1094:
1290:"There should be no reason why a reader would expect to find the article about the finale at whoami and Hello, Elliot"
1184:" for this episode/topic. There should be no reason why a reader would expect to find the article about the finale at
959:
924:
and gain a consensus to not use official titles. Either way, you are one editor with no support for your position. --
446:, which is clearly against you, so now you are move warring, so it is you that is required to submit a formal RM. --
1126:
1015:
See you at the RFC. And after I move this article based on the current support; I'll do that presently. Cheers. --
188:, but that article only got there through a massive discussion and three page moves. This article should exist at
1305:
1284:
from COMMONNAME, as literally 99.9% of TV articles are named after the episode title, with the exception of that
1269:
605:
1280:– that is what has happened as there is a clear consensus to use the official titles, which is in line with the
699:
648:
518:
488:
Given that it is your initial title that has no support and is controversial, it is up to you to file an RM. --
1297:
1185:
482:
It was a bold creation, and COMMONNAME states nothing about television episode titles. It does, however, state
219:
189:
742:
way to gain consensus; in fact, the quote states that the article should only reside at its original title if
39:
21:
685:
discussion to establish formal consensus is uncontroversial procedure so I don't understand the resistance.
1130:
347:
And that is your opinion. The BRD edit was creating the article at the "finale" title against consensus. --
1273:
1181:
626:
550:
Do you, or do you not, recognize that a consensus has been formed against your personal naming schemes? --
526:
426:
407:
403:
276:
167:
1261:
1138:
1098:
1221:
1217:
789:
443:
243:
1253:
681:. I have nothing else to add here. In the face of reasoned disagreement (outlined above), requesting a
510:
Except there is a single, obvious name, as I've already said in my explanation of the sources. To wit:
1301:
1176:
introduce and repeatedly refer to the episodes as "the finale" and many refer to them as "S4 E12"/13.
601:
296:
921:
678:
530:
235:
Are the episodes titled "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot"? Yes. Thus, the article needs to be titled
1234:
1047:
1025:
989:
934:
888:
876:
Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)#Television episode official name superseding common name
802:
756:
712:
661:
560:
498:
456:
357:
313:
263:
206:
185:
89:
1102:
399:
1293:
848:
415:
1216:, you have absolutely no editorial support for your position of using the common name. The
947:
916:
784:
327:
102:
858:
682:
616:
534:
331:
1201:
1004:
963:
903:
863:
771:
727:
687:
631:
587:
539:
471:
431:
371:
336:
281:
224:
172:
1318:
1180:
There is no reasonably way to conclude that the broadcaster's official title is the "
960:
WT:TV#RfC: Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title?
1309:
1241:
1207:
1054:
1032:
1010:
996:
969:
941:
909:
895:
869:
852:
809:
777:
763:
733:
719:
693:
668:
637:
609:
567:
545:
505:
477:
463:
437:
419:
377:
364:
342:
320:
287:
270:
230:
213:
178:
83:
1228:
1041:
1019:
983:
928:
882:
796:
750:
706:
655:
554:
492:
450:
351:
307:
257:
200:
1086:
Here is an accounting of the article's sources and how they refer to the episode:
677:
is the base; pinging editors to influence a discussion in a particular way is the
583:
192:, with the article title formatted with quotes in display, so the title shows as
844:
411:
300:
105:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
1114:
101:, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Knowledge (XXG) articles about
647:
comment, I'd say that's a yes, and thus the article can be moved per your own
591:
79:
1213:
629:? A yes/no would suffice and then I can take that to a wider forum for you.
578:
If an article does not already exist with the name of the television show,
1037:
So far, no further support at all for the "finale"/"common" title... --
73:
52:
573:
239:, as quote formatting is typically never included in a title, with
1249:
1158:(not in prose, in headline but not even invoked as the title),
15:
249:
adding the quotes as necessary, so the title is displayed as
843:
convention, that in itself is the community's consensus. --
537:
on your behalf as I can't cite a basis for your position.
218:
Based on what sources? What's the purpose of titling it "
744:
no consensus can be reached on what the title should be
674:
619:
if you want to move the page, as is standard procedure.
1077:
Use of "official title" by reliable, secondary sources
469:
acting unilaterally, and justifying it retroactively.
406:
with all other episode articles and is starting to be
1296:" if you're that concerned. You could also create a "
596:
The episode titles are "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot"
196:(minus the italics, that's my own formatting). --
184:This article certainly matches an article such as
1248:"whoami" and "Hello, Elliot" are also present at
279:, which our policy prefers over official names.
222:" if no sources call it even a variant of that?
533:of proof is not on me and I can't even start a
109:. To improve this article, please refer to the
330:to restore the original title. Please start a
1084:
511:
8:
979:or not your "finale" title is supported. --
702:quote, the article is valid to be moved. --
19:
857:These are all arguments you can make in a
47:
1146:of "whoami" or "Hello, Elliot" titles:
1093:of "whoami" or "Hello, Elliot" titles:
49:
1289:
1281:
1277:
743:
644:
577:
483:
292:
250:
236:
166:Note that I titled the article by its
119:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Television
7:
627:name by which they're commonly known
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
1330:Low-importance television articles
14:
1162:(not in prose, only in callout),
738:It does not state that it is the
954:
82:
72:
51:
20:
1335:WikiProject Television articles
1325:Start-Class television articles
1193:Special:PermanentLink/937582323
874:After seeing the discussion at
139:This article has been rated as
122:Template:WikiProject Television
1:
645:do you all share the position
271:06:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
231:23:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
214:23:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
179:11:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
1310:14:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
1264:, and online guides such as
1242:05:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
1208:23:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
1186:"whoami" and "Hello, Elliot"
1055:06:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
1033:02:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1011:02:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
997:01:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
970:01:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
942:01:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
910:00:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
896:00:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
810:04:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
788:defended by policy already:
778:04:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
764:03:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
734:03:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
251:"whoami" and "Hello, Elliot"
194:"whoami" and "Hello, Elliot"
870:02:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
853:14:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
720:07:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
694:02:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
669:06:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
638:04:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
610:14:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
568:13:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
546:11:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
506:07:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
478:07:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
464:07:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
438:05:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
420:07:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
378:07:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
365:07:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
343:05:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
321:01:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
288:00:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
1351:
1282:Consistency characteristic
1222:stop beating a dead horse.
334:if you wish to change it.
293:by which no one knows them
145:project's importance scale
1298:Series Finale (Mr. Robot)
138:
67:
46:
679:definition of canvassing
237:whoami and Hello, Elliot
220:whoami and Hello, Elliot
190:whoami and Hello, Elliot
1166:(not in prose, only in
1197:
523:
332:formal move discussion
98:WikiProject Television
28:This article is rated
113:for the type of work.
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1300:" redirect as well.
1115:Entertainment Weekly
600:"Mr. Robot finale".
1288:episode I believe.
125:television articles
107:join the discussion
103:television programs
1152:Hollywood Reporter
34:content assessment
186:Inhumans premiere
159:
158:
155:
154:
151:
150:
90:Television portal
1342:
1294:Mr. Robot finale
1240:
1231:
1206:
1204:
1195:
1053:
1044:
1031:
1022:
1009:
1007:
995:
986:
968:
966:
958:
957:
940:
931:
908:
906:
894:
885:
868:
866:
808:
799:
776:
774:
762:
753:
732:
730:
718:
709:
692:
690:
667:
658:
636:
634:
566:
557:
544:
542:
521:
504:
495:
476:
474:
462:
453:
436:
434:
376:
374:
363:
354:
341:
339:
319:
310:
286:
284:
269:
260:
248:
242:
229:
227:
212:
203:
177:
175:
127:
126:
123:
120:
117:
111:style guidelines
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1350:
1349:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1315:
1314:
1302:Drovethrughosts
1237:
1229:
1225:
1202:
1200:
1190:
1079:
1050:
1042:
1038:
1028:
1020:
1016:
1005:
1003:
992:
984:
980:
964:
962:
955:
937:
929:
925:
904:
902:
891:
883:
879:
864:
862:
805:
797:
793:
772:
770:
759:
751:
747:
728:
726:
715:
707:
703:
700:WP:TITLECHANGES
688:
686:
664:
656:
652:
649:WP:TITLECHANGES
632:
630:
602:Drovethrughosts
563:
555:
551:
540:
538:
519:WP:TITLECHANGES
516:
501:
493:
489:
472:
470:
459:
451:
447:
432:
430:
372:
370:
360:
352:
348:
337:
335:
316:
308:
304:
297:Drovethrughosts
282:
280:
266:
258:
254:
246:
240:
225:
223:
209:
201:
197:
173:
171:
164:
124:
121:
118:
115:
114:
88:
81:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1348:
1346:
1338:
1337:
1332:
1327:
1317:
1316:
1313:
1312:
1245:
1244:
1235:
1189:
1178:
1177:
1171:
1144:Single mention
1141:
1119:Showbuzz Daily
1095:New York Times
1078:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1048:
1035:
1026:
990:
952:
935:
889:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
803:
757:
713:
662:
623:
620:
588:Pauline Fowler
570:
561:
535:requested move
515:
499:
457:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
358:
314:
264:
207:
163:
160:
157:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
141:Low-importance
137:
131:
130:
128:
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1347:
1336:
1333:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1320:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1274:WP:COMMONNAME
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1246:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1232:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1196:
1194:
1187:
1183:
1175:
1172:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1107:Rolling Stone
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1076:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1045:
1036:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1023:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1000:
999:
998:
994:
993:
987:
977:
973:
972:
971:
967:
961:
953:
949:
945:
944:
943:
939:
938:
932:
923:
918:
913:
912:
911:
907:
899:
898:
897:
893:
892:
886:
877:
873:
872:
871:
867:
860:
856:
855:
854:
850:
846:
841:
811:
807:
806:
800:
791:
786:
781:
780:
779:
775:
767:
766:
765:
761:
760:
754:
745:
741:
737:
736:
735:
731:
723:
722:
721:
717:
716:
710:
701:
697:
696:
695:
691:
684:
680:
676:
672:
671:
670:
666:
665:
659:
650:
646:
641:
640:
639:
635:
628:
624:
621:
618:
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
593:
589:
585:
581:
580:episode title
575:
571:
569:
565:
564:
558:
549:
548:
547:
543:
536:
532:
528:
522:
520:
509:
508:
507:
503:
502:
496:
486:
481:
480:
479:
475:
467:
466:
465:
461:
460:
454:
445:
441:
440:
439:
435:
428:
427:WP:COMMONNAME
423:
422:
421:
417:
413:
409:
408:WP:DISRUPTIVE
405:
401:
397:
396:
379:
375:
368:
367:
366:
362:
361:
355:
346:
345:
344:
340:
333:
329:
324:
323:
322:
318:
317:
311:
302:
298:
294:
291:
290:
289:
285:
278:
274:
273:
272:
268:
267:
261:
252:
245:
238:
234:
233:
232:
228:
221:
217:
216:
215:
211:
210:
204:
195:
191:
187:
183:
182:
181:
180:
176:
169:
161:
146:
142:
136:
133:
132:
129:
112:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1285:
1226:
1198:
1179:
1173:
1167:
1143:
1090:
1085:
1080:
1039:
1017:
981:
975:
926:
880:
794:
790:WP:CONSENSUS
748:
739:
704:
653:
597:
579:
552:
512:
490:
448:
444:WP:CONSENSUS
404:INCONSISTENT
349:
305:
255:
244:DISPLAYTITLE
198:
193:
165:
140:
96:
40:WikiProjects
1262:Google Play
1199:Take care.
1182:common name
1174:All sources
527:common name
429:is policy.
277:common name
168:common name
30:Start-class
1319:Categories
1220:is clear:
1091:No mention
651:quote. --
592:Cape Feare
442:And so is
116:Television
59:Television
1270:Gracenote
1218:consensus
675:this edit
584:CarnivĂ le
485:directly.
402:- and is
1286:Inhumans
1168:URL slug
1139:Engadget
1111:Deadline
1103:TV Guide
1160:AV Club
1156:Vulture
1131:Complex
400:WP:NCTV
143:on the
1266:Zap2it
1254:iTunes
1135:Bustle
1123:TVLine
948:WP:IAR
917:WP:IAR
845:Gonnym
785:WP:IAR
574:MOS:TV
531:burden
412:Gonnym
301:Gonnym
36:scale.
1127:Paste
922:WT:TV
859:WP:RM
792:. --
683:WP:RM
617:WP:RM
253:. --
162:Title
1306:talk
1268:and
1258:Vudu
1230:Alex
1214:Czar
1203:czar
1043:Alex
1021:Alex
1006:czar
985:Alex
976:then
965:czar
951:one:
930:Alex
905:czar
884:Alex
865:czar
849:talk
798:Alex
773:czar
752:Alex
740:only
729:czar
708:Alex
689:czar
657:Alex
633:czar
606:talk
590:or "
572:Per
556:Alex
541:czar
494:Alex
473:czar
452:Alex
433:czar
416:talk
410:. --
373:czar
353:Alex
338:czar
309:Alex
299:and
283:czar
259:Alex
226:czar
202:Alex
174:czar
1250:NBC
1224:--
1164:Vox
1148:IGN
1099:CNN
598:not
594:").
328:BRD
135:Low
1321::
1308:)
1276:,
1260:,
1256:,
1252:,
1236:21
1191:—
1154:,
1150:,
1137:,
1133:,
1129:,
1125:,
1121:,
1117:,
1113:,
1109:,
1105:,
1101:,
1097:,
1049:21
1027:21
991:21
936:21
890:21
851:)
804:21
758:21
714:21
663:21
608:)
586:,
576::
562:21
517:—
500:21
458:21
418:)
359:21
315:21
265:21
247:}}
241:{{
208:21
1304:(
1233:/
1227:/
1188:.
1170:)
1046:/
1040:/
1024:/
1018:/
988:/
982:/
933:/
927:/
887:/
881:/
847:(
801:/
795:/
755:/
749:/
711:/
705:/
660:/
654:/
604:(
559:/
553:/
497:/
491:/
455:/
449:/
414:(
356:/
350:/
312:/
306:/
262:/
256:/
205:/
199:/
147:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
