Talk:Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) (2000 TV series)

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television , a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Taskforce icon

This article is supported by the British television task force .

WikiProject icon Science Fiction Low‐importance

I don't know how to start a formal process, but I think this article needs renaming. I cannot imagine what went through the mind of someone to distinguish articles by the titles "Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased)" vs "Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)". Since this is the newer and less well-known programme, I suggest that this be the one with a bracketed phrase, like "Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) (1993)", with a redirect from the "&" title to the "and" one (and a redirect from "Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) (1993)" to the "&" version of that). Both could then have hatnotes. 128.86.174.32 (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

I see it has been renamed but from the titlecard, it is Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) and not Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) so it is now wrong. REVUpminster (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC) [reply ]

I've moved it again, to Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) (2000 TV series) as "(2000s series)" is not correct disambiguation per WP:NCTV. As "Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)" is practically impossible to distinguish from "Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased)", both of those should redirect to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with a hatnote to this article. I have no preference whether this article remains at "Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) (2000 TV series)" or if it is moved to "Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) (2000 TV series)". --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

It used to be Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) as it was when the article was first started. It would agree with the titlecard and how the makers intended to distinguish the series from the original. Hatnotes used to distinguish the two series. When it was altered to it's present name; the links were via redirects most of which have since been sorted. They would have to be sorted again.REVUpminster (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) vs. Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) is not sufficient disambiguation. By all means move this to Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) (2000 TV series) to match the title card, but the original series could equally be referred to with the ampersand. Have a look at this DVD set for example, or Google "Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased)" for other examples of usage of the ampersand for the original series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Because other companies do not follow the tilecard in their advertising it does not mean Wikipedia should do the same. We should stick to the original.REVUpminster (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Like I said, no problem to move to Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased) (2000 TV series) per the title card, in fact I'll do it now. The point being that "&" vs. "and" is not sufficient for disambiguation, as the ampersand is just as likely to be used for the primary topic as demonstrated. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC) [reply ]