Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6

< May 5	May 7 >

May 6 edit

Category:Defunct mass media edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 10:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Defunct mass media of Australia to Category:Defunct mass media in Australia per Category:Mass media in Australia

Rationale This is to bring Category:Defunct mass media by country into line with Category:Mass media by country, which was renamed to use 'in' at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_10#Media_by_country. Oculi (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The move target for all of these (in the CfD template in the categories themselves) is "Category:Change 'of' to 'in'". Will fix! dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 07:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of them!

dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 07:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Augustine scholars edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Augustine scholars to Category:Augustinian scholars

Nominator's rationale: As per WP:RS the common adjectival form of the discipline, and to match other future patristic scholar categories. Elizium23 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Proposed rename is ambiguous with scholars who are writing from an Augustinian perspective (which does not apply to all those in this category) or scholars who are Augustinians. The current name is unambiguous and should be kept. b uidhe 21:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Buidhe. This would create ambiguity: Augustinian is a disambiguation page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Augustinian refers to a religious order. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Augustine studies edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Augustine studies to Category:Augustinian studies

Nominator's rationale: Per widespread usage in WP:RS as both a proper noun and a common term referring to the study of St. Augustine, in the common adjectival form. Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: consistency with parent (Category:Christianity studies) and child (Category:Augustine scholars) categories. Both forms are widely used in sources, and again you have the problem of ambiguity as to writing from an Augustinian viewpoint versus writing about Augustinianism. Current name is unambiguous. b uidhe 21:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Buidhe. This would create ambiguity: Augustinian is a disambiguation page.
This category is about studies of Saint Augustine of Hippo and Augustinians. The proposed rename would create ambiguity with studies by Augustinian, i.e. members of religious orders following the Rule of St Augustine.
Also, it is very unhelpful that the nominator @Elizium23 failed to even mention that this proposal was first made by them as a speedy nomination at WP:CFDS, where it was opposed. The convention is that the opposed speedy nomination should not just be noted, but that whoever brings it here for a full discussion posts with this nomination a copy of the comments at CFDS. The lack of transparency in this case undermines consensus-formation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a copy of the CFDS exchange which Elizium23 should have included in the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of comments at WP:CFDS

Category:Augustine studies to Category:Augustinian studies – C2B: Adjectival form per articles and widespread usage Elizium23 (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose speedy I have seen no indication that "Augustinian studies" is part of an established category tree or otherwise satisfies C2B. Its immediate parent is "Christianity studies", which uses the noun form. b uidhe 21:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many WP:RS refer to "Augustinian studies" in both proper noun form and generic lowercase form, in describing a periodical and programs of study at university. Where are your WP:RS describing "Augustine studies"? Elizium23 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is most probably a valid rename, but it does not seem to satisfy a speedy criterion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Augustinian refers to a religious order. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Valleys of Newton County, Missouri edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Valleys of Newton County, Missouri to Category:Landforms of Newton County, Missouri

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent category per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one page in this category, and unlikely to increase in number of pages. Hog Farm (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, as part of an established series under Category:Valleys of Missouri by county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep for the exact and excelllent reason stated by BHG above Hmains (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Diptera pages with biological content edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 21:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Diptera pages with biological content (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nebulous category that has no reason to exist Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This category guides those interested in the Biology of Diptera to access pages with substantive biological content.It serves as an index.Please do not delete it. Notafly (talk) PS I am selecting pages which illustrate the variety of life strategies of Diptera.Content will likely not exceed 100- most Diptera stubs relate to taxonomy alone.Also, in part, it was to draw attention to the very useful work of the Diptera group.
- Hi Notafly, I'm sorry for disrupting your editing. I respect your work in creating Diptera articles. What is your definition of an article having "biological content"? It seems that the definition of this category is all Diptera articles that are in some way substantial i.e. C class or above, as any article of that quality must in some way discuss "biological content" in order to be that substantial. Much of the same classification without the category could be done by changing articles to c class for wikiproject diptera on their talk pages, which would show up here. There's not really any need for a category that duplicates the Wikiproject Diptera quality scale. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you mean and you are right - C class articles serve the same end. I will need a little time to change the pages.Will you leave matters as they stand until I have completed that please. Kind regards to you to. Notafly (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have I done the link to C class from Biology of Diptera (under See also) correctly?
    - I have added B class articles to the section as there are 46 of them, I didn't add GA or featured articles as there is only a few of them, and the reader can easily navigate to them from the linked categories. While some of the articles in the categories are not directly about Dipterans like genes or films, I think they are enough of a minority that they don't really matter. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nice work.Thankyou.Notafly (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2020
        No content now. Please delete category. Keep up the good work.Best regards Notafly (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic music categories edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: already speedied. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: The page for the main article 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic was recently moved to COVID-19 pandemic, its correct virological name per the recent discussion at the relevant article talk page Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Requested_move_26_April_2020 → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 15:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note This was six separate nominations which shared a word-for-word identical rationale, so I have merged them. I have updated the tags on each of the six categories, so that they link to this new heading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nominator and per Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Requested_move_26_April_2020. (As a sidenote, I think that the pile-on at the RM was mistaken, and that it chose a scientifically-correct name instead of an unambiguous WP:COMMONNAME ... but I accept the outcome and don't seek to re-open it, so this rename is a natural follow-on) .--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I hope this will be the last case where we need to change a category to match the WHO-adopted name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Concerts about the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting ~~Category:Concerts about the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)~~ Category:Concerts about the COVID-19 pandemic

Nominator's rationale: The category doesn't make logical sense. Benefit concerts are not concerts about the pandemic → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 15:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:2020 concerts. I support the nominator's rationale that benefit concerts are not concerts about the pandemic .... but outright deletion would remove the contents from Category:2020 concerts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge, also to Category:Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on music. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the category has meanwhile been renamed, I took the liberty to adapt the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment, the CFD tag had been removed because this category was part of two discussions simultaneously and the other one closed. So I restored the tag now. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bill Haslam edit

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 19#Category:Bill Haslam

Category:1st-century European people by nationality edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:1st-century European people by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Conflating ethnicity with nationality. Since Ireland (the only subcat here) in the 1st century was divided into many independent kingdoms, no 1st century individual can be said to have the Irish nationality. It simply did not exist. I’d be willing to concede they are probably ethnically Irish, but the concept of a nationality is absurd in this context. Kleuske (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:1st-century European people. That category has too few subcategories to require this type of diffusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge I would disagree that Ireland in the 1st-century was not a nation; that there were many tribes does not disallow their common kinship or sense of nationhood. While the foregoing tends to go in the opposite direction to my vote, the Irish example is probably one of the few exceptions in Europe. As a rule, it's not a good idea to designate nationality in Europe at such a remote period so support Marco's suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Category:1st-century European people. If we needed this it should be "by ethnicity", but nationality was a concept that had yet to come. There was citizenship, normally relating to a city not a nation. Roman citizenship might be an exception, but in fact refers to the city of Rome. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Spanish-language YouTubers edit

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Category:Spanish-language YouTubers

Category:Holy Land archaeologists edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. On examination, these articles can all be recategorized into Category:Biblical archaeologists and Category:Archaeologists of the Near East (many of which are already so categorized), so in practice this is more of a merge. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Holy Land archaeologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT, this is a redundant intersection of Category:Biblical archaeologists and Category:Archaeologists of the Near East. – Joe (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, but move articles of this category to Category:Biblical archaeologists or Category:Archaeologists of the Near East insofar applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
manually empty to the other categories, then delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Television program(me)s edit

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 28 May 2020. The result of the move review was endorsed (default).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: standardize to "shows" for now, with no prejudice against future discussion, and to leave redirects from "program(me)s". This is a position that Fayenatic london and I, who are performing a group closure of this CFD, independently arrived at on reading this discussion, in which there were three basic positions.

The first was to rename from "program(me)s" to "shows," following the reasoning in the nom that such a move would in one fell swoop standardize the category tree using a term that is in common usage in the US and the UK, citing MOS:COMMONALITY. It would also match the target article, which is the convention as far as category naming is concerned. Although they did not comprise a numerical majority, the advocates of this position were unified in their approach and generally advanced arguments based on policies and guidelines related to categorization.

The opposing position, which advocated for using "program(me)s", argued variously that: "show" is not as inclusive definition-wise as "program(me)," "program(me)" has more prevalent usage in articlespace, "show" is too vernacular and not suitable in tone for an encyclopedia, "program(me)" has greater usage in the industry and in the TV WikiProject, and "show" promotes an American bias. They also noted that the main article was moved some time ago with little discussion. There was some sourcing given for this position (particularly about formal usage in the industry), but many of the assertions regarding the denotations, connotations, and usages of the terms were not backed beyond the realm of personal experience, and the evidence that had been assembled in the original nomination was not overthrown. The general rename target for standardization in the opposition was more varied, but generally the agreement here was that renaming all of them to "program" was preferable to "show," with another small group preferring the retention of "programme."

In part because of the furor of the back-and-forth between the two sides, a third position emerged: Standardize the entire category tree, regardless of the term. That is not to say that the respondents in this category did not necessarily have "leans" of their own on either side, and some of them even suggested other possible names for the sake of compromise, which either had round opposition on all sides like "series," or were introduced too late like "original programming". It's worth noting that the neutrality of this position was not for the status quo being preserved, but for some course of action to be taken in order that navigation might not be hampered because of the divergent names. It is also noteworthy that proposals to perhaps allow for a relaxation of ENGVAR and let programs/programmes coexist similar to transport/transportation did not gain major traction. The weight behind this third position to take action is one of the major reasons why Fayenatic london and I are not comfortable with closing as "no consensus".

It is not the role of CFD to be a battleground for a proxy war regarding ENGVAR disputes. That discussion will have to taken up in an RFC. Any discussion and consensus in this venue must be built upon the criteria and conventions established at WP:CATNAME (and insofar as there is no contradiction, the general goals of WP:TITLE) and WP:CFDS, as well as the overall ethos that categories be navigational and defining per WP:CAT. As such, Fayenatic london and I both conclude that there is a working consensus to standardize with the rename as proposed, acknowledging that future discussions either here at CFD or at other venues may well create a different course of action down the line.

I also want to address the deplorable lack of civility in this discussion. This discussion was not pleasant to read (and we had to read every word of it), not pleasant to close, and obviously not pleasant for those who participated. I want to specifically urge BHG to not give in to the need to comment on every single oppose with an inflammatory tone, and Pyxis Solitary and Laurel Lodged to not respond with similarly barbed words. Please note that closers are capable of assessing for themselves whether participants' arguments have disproved another's stated rationale.

The renaming of 471 categories is no small matter, and represents a major change. I'll give a 24 hour wait before we list the categories in WP:CFD/W so that anyone who feels that this is an improper closure can make a listing at WP:MR. In the interests of disclosing potential bias, Fayenatic london is in the UK and almost exclusively uses "programme," while I am in the US and almost exclusively use "show."

Our suggestion is that if there are future discussions down the line in this venue, they should list out all the different possibilities for consideration (perhaps using an option A, B, C... format), and that no such nominations be made (other than to pick up any potential omissions from this nomination) for two months from today.

Pinging the participants: BrownHairedGirl, Pyxis Solitary, Gonnym, Netoholic, IJBall, Morriswa, Izno, Marcocapelle, Deb, Historyday01, Oculi, Erpert, Paul_012, Carlossuarez46, Peterkingiron, Laurel Lodged, Facu-el Millo, Danstarr69, AussieLegend, Mvcg66b3r, RevelationDirect bibliomaniac 1 5 18:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. – Fayenatic London 20:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original close as "pending" on 21 May 2020 by bibliomaniac15

Original closing statement: I should have done this earlier, but I'm going to close this discussion from further comment. Regardless of who is "right" and who is "wrong," the piling on, jabs, and text walling fall well short of creating a collegial editing atmosphere. This is absolutely unacceptable. I'll name no names and take no further comment on that. This discussion will take time to parse because of its length and multiplicity of positions. I've also asked the closer of the previous CFD, User:Fayenatic london, to look over my analysis of the consensus, since he is both uninvolved discussion-wise and also well versed in the realm of categorization. Additionally, because he is in London and I am in the US, I hope this will also help allay potential concerns regarding bias in our closure. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

List of 471 categories to be renamed "television program(me)s" to "television shows"

Nominator's rationale: For clarity and consistency, per MOS:COMMONALITY, as discussed at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 31#Category:Television_programs, where the parent Category:Television programs was renamed to Category:Television shows.

This matches the head article television show, to which television program and television programme both redirect.

None of these category titles are proper names. They are all descriptive titles devised by Wikipedia editors per WP:NDESC, so they should conform to general Wikipedia policies and practices on category titles.

There is little or no difference in scope between the terms "television show" and "television program(me)". The distinction is solely in usage: "show" originated in the United States, and "programme" was the more common usage in British English, but "televison show" is now widely used in British English. See e.g. the English newspapers The Guardian/The Observer (The Observer is published on Sunday as a sister-paper to the monday-Saturday Guardian). The papers' joint style guide at https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-t lists "television shows" but not "television programs" or "television programmes" and a search today shows that actual usage on the paper's website is evenly split between "show" and "programme":

Standardising on "shows" also resolves the spelling variation between the British "programmes" and the American "programs". Per MOS:COMMONALITY,

using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable

... and in this case, the term "television shows" is the only one which is common to all varieties of English.

In the March 31 discussion, one editor asserted that "television show" is too informal a term for an encyclopaedia. Despite several requests, no evidence was offered for that assertion ... and the claim is readily disproven by checking usage in peer-reviewed academic journals, which are the gold standard reliable source: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

A search today of JSTOR gives:
- 11,566 hits for "television show"
- 14,923 hits for (("television programme") OR ("television program")).
A search of Google scholar gives

If "show" is sufficiently formal for the most reliable sources then it is sufficiently formal for the encyclopedia.

In the March 31 CFD, some editors made repeated references to MOS:TV and WP:NCTV. However:

WP:NCTV does not mention categories
MOS:TV mentions categories only at MOS:TVCATS, which does not mention the shows/programs/programmes issue.

So we are left with a distinction-without-a difference which breaches MOS:COMMONALITY and hinders navigation ... and per WP:CAT, navigation is the core purpose of categories.

The participants in the March 31 CFD who claimed that there is an existing consensus to use "programs"/"programmes" in category titles were unable to identify a single piece of guidance in support of their claim, or a single discussion which had established even a WP:LOCALCONSENUS for that view, or a single piece of evidence in reliable sources to support their view that "show" is unacceptably informal. I hope that this discussion will not be disrupted by another dose of such unevidenced assertions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the participants in the March 31 CFD: @Erpert, Grutness, Marcocapelle, AussieLegend, Oculi, Johnbod, Gonnym, and MapReader, and the closer Fayenatic london. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This change would throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm responding to this discussion because changing Category:Lesbian-related television programs to "Lesbian-related television shows" fails to take into consideration that not all television programs are "shows". The term "program" is an umbrella term for a television production, be it a TV series or a made-for-television film -- and a telemovie is not a "show". Heck, even streaming services (like Netflix) make a point of distinguishing between a TV series and a TV film in their catalog. The attempts to Americanize Wikipedia needs to stop. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pyxis Solitary. In the nomination, I have included evidence that "television show" is acceptable usage in the UK. It's a pity you missed that.
  It's also a pity that you seem not to have read the comment in the nomination's last para asking editors to avoid unevidenced assertions ... and your ABF claim that this an attempt to Americanize Wikipedia is wholly unevidenced.
  I also note that no evidence is provided for your assertion that not all television programs are 'shows'. So your oppose is 100% WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem to have been butt hurt by one sentence: the Americanize. You can attempt to dismiss my response by accusing me that I simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- but I think the proposal is wrong.
"no evidence is provided for your assertion that not all television programs are 'shows'". Listen, Perry Mason, this isn't a trial and I don't have to provide any evidence for my response. I've given my reason and I remain opposed. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, straight to the personal abuse,~~, and making up a fake quote~~. And clearly ignoring WP:NOTAVOTE. The closer will know how to weigh that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you say is "fake" is copied from your response to my opposition. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 00:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was wrong about the quote and have struck that comment. But my point stands: you have made an assertion about the meaning of words, but have offered no evidence. Per WP:V, you need some evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Per WP:V, you need some evidence." You are mistaken. Wikipedia has no policy or guideline that requires editors in discussions to also provide evidence that backs their response, whether the reply opposes or supports the issue. WP:V is about articles -- not discussions: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Wherein "Wikipedia mainspace" is defined as: "The main namespace, article namespace, or mainspace is the namespace of Wikipedia that contains the encyclopedia proper—that is, where "live" Wikipedia articles reside". If someone wants to include "evidence" for their opinion: hooray for them. It still doesn't change that they didn't have to.
As for "The closer will know how to weigh that." ... any closer that makes decisions based on your premise needs to re-read WP:CLOSE. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they do re-read WP:CLOSE, they will find WP:Discardable, which requires the closer to weigh after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only. Unevidenced assertions about the meaning of words or the pattern of usage are just personal opinion, and the principle of verifiability is not excluded here: these categories appear on article pages, and WP:CATVER applies.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pyxis Solitary wants specific evidence of the lack of distinction between "television show" and "television program(me)". So here is a search of Google News (chosen per WP:Search engine test because it concentrates reliable sources): plenty of examples of the two terms being used interchangeably. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, nope. I did not request "specific evidence" about anything. What I said is "this isn't a trial and I don't have to provide any evidence for my response". Stop making things up (it's not as if everyone isn't able to read what I wrote). You've got a serious problem. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 00:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: that is your third item of personal abuse in his discussion. Please strike it.

I was responding to your comment that fails to take into consideration that not all television programs are "shows". I took that as a request for evidence, and provided it.

Your contributions to the discussions would be more helpful to consensus-formation if you dropped the insults, and refrained from asserting as fact points for which you have no evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Pyxis Solitary wants specific evidence of the lack of distinction between "television show" and "television program(me)"." This is what you stated for others to assume about my initial (11:32, 6 May 2020) comment. Let me explain something about myself: I don't reinterpret someone's comments, I don't make false claims about someone's comment, and I don't tolerate it from anyone. You dealt it, so bite the bullet ... and move on. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed in good faith that you rejected my point because of lack of evidence. You have now made it very clear that my good faith was misplaced, and that you consider evidence to be an irrelevant distraction from your right to make ex-cathedra pronouncements with no obligation to support or justify them. I am sorry for mistaking you for someone who open to reasoned discussion, and I apologise for any offence caused by that mistake. In hindsight, with the benefit of what you have later clarified about your stance, I should have written something like "Pyxis Solitary doesn't give a damn about evidence, and prefers personal insults; but for those who want more a more solid basis of fact than the assertions of an anonymous en.wp editor, here's some evidence". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per consensus at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 31#Category:Television_programs. Surprised to hear that 'show' is American. Oculi (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging: The categories have all been tagged, in these edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was pinged so I'll respond. Oppose all moves. Even in BHG analysis it is clear that the clear majority use "television program". I agree with her that categories should use a consistent style and as I don't believe national ties should hinder navigation in categories (and when needed, category redirects can be made), that should be the one used, not "show" which is almost non-existent in the article space and is counter to how the running text of the en.wiki is. I'm probably not going to respond to this again (seeing as how I've asked before of BHG to bring this to a discussion which she clearly ignored), so unless you really want me to respond, please don't ping me (including you BHG). --Gonnym (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonnym says I've asked before of BHG to bring this to a discussion which she clearly ignored). Here have that discussion, to which I created 472 notifications (one at WT:TV, and one at each of the 471 categories). So the assertion that I clearly ignored the request is demonstrably false.
  It's notable that yet again Gonnym asserts a claim of national ties with n evidence to support that, while I have presented evidence that the two are interchangeable in British English. And finally, Gonnym completely ignores MOS:COMMONALITY.
  So the summary of Gonnym's !vote is that it is entirely counter-factual and contra-policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS Gonnym asserts that clear that the clear majority use "television program". This is false: the evidence actually shows that there is roughly equal usage for three terms "television shows", "television programs" and "television programmes".
    Only one of those three roughly equal terms avoids ENGVAR issues, so MOS:COMMONALITY requires us to use that common term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose – "television show" is vernacular; the correct term is "television program(me)". The problem is that the television program article was moved to "television show" in late 2017 after a poorly attended WP:RM – that article should be moved back to where it belongs. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I understand that many people call them "shows", but, as an encyclopedia, shouldn't we be using more proper language and wording? Shouldn't these actually be "series"? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Who decides what is "proper" language? It is not for Wikipedia to tell people how to use words. If "show" is more commonly used than "program(me)" then that is what we should use.Rathfelder (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Morriswa, "TV series" is unfortunately ambiguous in British English and more often refers to the 'season' than it does the set of episodes constituting the show/program(me)/whatnot, AIUI. --Izno (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than simply that – "TV series" is also a "subset" of "TV program", as "series" implies continuing elements such as an ongoing story, while "TV program" is broader and includes other types of TV programming such as news programming, game shows and talk shows. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that as with the opposes in the previous CFD, @Morriswa:

offers zero evidence in support of their assertion that "program(me)" is more proper language and wording
ignores the evidence which I provided in the nomination that "shows" is acceptable language in the most reliable sources
ignores MOS:COMMONALITY

That's just more WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: "Show" really can't (or woudln't in the UK) be used about many types of TV programme, such as current affairs, documentaries, etc. It's too American, as is "program" (which in English actually refers to a computer program). Deb (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add that the only reason "show" appears to be the most common term is that it's the term used in North America. That doesn't make it better, and doesn't justify the proposed move. Deb (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pick a word. I honestly don't care what the word is but it is damaging to navigation to need to deal with two separate category trees. The opposition is unconvincing that this particular word is a bad word. --Izno (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We've explained why "TV show" is vernacular (e.g. used by the hoi polloi) – it's not a proper "industry" term. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, IJBall, you have not explained why 'TV show' is vernacular (e.g. used by the hoi polloi). You and others have made a series of wholly un-evidenced assertions, and have ignored the evidence provided in the nomination that "shows" is widely in scholarly sources, not just by those who condescendingly call hoi-polloi — which is a term whose history is as an expression of class snobbery (see lots of uses, and even https://thesnobmag.com whose slogan is Luxury for the classes. Hoi polloi need not apply. If you believe that such class snobbery is any part of of Wikipedia policy on page titles, please identify that policy.

OTOH, policy at WP:COMMONNAME says to use the name most commonly used in reliable sources ... and MOS:COMMONALITY says Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles.. In this case, the universally accepted term is "television show". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you can ignore what WP:TV regulars (and your own stats) are telling you, but you are unlikely to get very far. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, @IJBall, policy requires that the closer discounts !votes which are not founded in policy or evidence. Your belief that a pile-on of WP:IDONTLIKEITs will prevail is a denial of WP:NOTAVOTE ... and it's sad to see that those who you call WP:TV regulars have shown no regard here for evidence or policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresenting what's happening isn't helping either – the oppose votes all basically follow on Gonnym's argument – that your own stats support the idea that "TV program/programme" is the most common (and best, most all-encompassing) term. And I find the anti-WP:ENGVAR arguments against the current system unconvincing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I make no misrepresentation, IJBall. On the contrary, by ignoring the spelling variation you are misrepresenting the data: what you call "TV program/programme" is actually two terms "TV program" and "TV programme", so no term has majority usage. Per MOS:COMMONALITY, we are obliged to avoid the ENGVAR split, and use the commonly acceptable term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, if show is what we need to avoid really dumb arguments over "program(me)" because dumb old ENGVAR gets in the way, then we should go with show (that's what COMMONALITY means). It would be much more productive if you (and everyone else opposing) bikeshedded or suggested some words we could use to get rid of this idiotic time sink that damages navigation. Heck, I'll throw in and say I'll even take one of the words that half of the populace is bound to hate and suggest picking one of program or programme if that makes you happy. What's not okay is to sit there and bold-oppose Just Because "Show Isn't Good Enough". --Izno (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: Here because the categories for "LGBT-related_television_programs" is one of those encompassed by the broad change. Programs is much more broad than "shows," as not every series is always considered a "show," especially not those that air in non-English speaking countries. Additionally, as @IJBall and @Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) said, television program(me) is the correct term, while show is more venacular. This change should be opposed without question.--Historyday01 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that like the two editors who @Historyday01 cited approvingly, Historyday01 offers not a single shred of evidence for their assertions ... and also makes no reply to the evidence in support of "shows" which was presented in the nomination. So far, the !votes to oppose are 100% WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're clearly not helping your own cause – throwing insults at the people who disagree with you is simply going to cause the opposition to dig in. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given their previous comments, it is sadly unsurprising that IJBALL chooses to dismiss calls for a policy-focus and for evidence as throwing insults. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Standardise somehow per User:Izno. All should be at either "shows", "programs" or "programmes". Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Standardise, agree with Marcocapelle. Since 'show' doesn't have two different spellings, it might be the way to go. El Millo (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support "show", based on all information gathered by BrownHairedGirl. El Millo (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Standardize per Izno, but...include "series" as one of the options. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Series" would clearly be wrong – TV news programs, game shows, talk shows, TV movies – none of those are TV "series". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - We already have Category:Television series, not affected by this nom. Oculi (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Marcocapelle and @Erpert make a good point about standarizing the names, but I do have to agree with @IJBall that series would be wrong as it cannot apply to TV news programs, game shows, talk shows, or TV movies. While taking into account what Oculi is saying, lets take Astra Lost in Space, Ice (anime), Interspecies Reviewers, Mnemosyne (anime), Macross Frontier, Cybersix, Sym-Bionic Titan, Macross Zero, Kiznaiver, as examples, as all of these animations only have one season. They would be programs but not series going by the MacMillian Dictionary, which defines as "a set of television or radio programmes that are all about a particular subject, person, or group of people." So, using series wouldn't make sense. ~~Merriam-Webster~~ Dictionary.com defines a show as "a radio or television program" and a programme/program as "a performance or series of performances, often presented at a scheduled time, esp on radio or television." As such, I have to disagree with the assertions by the op, @BrownHairedGirl. It seems clear to me that program/programme (depending on how you spell it) is broader than show. At times, a show is underneath a program. For instance, Toonami is a programming block on Cartoon Network which includes many shows. At other times, the term program/programme is used instead of show, I still feel as television program/programme is the more proper term than "show." The OP can say this is done for "clarity and consistency," but I would actually say that this will not so. For the OP to cite the "television program" redirect to television show as evidence of their claim is spurious because it is only one page and should NOT be applied as a broader policy to all of the categories they propose changing. I also disagree there is little difference between the the terms "television show" and "television program(me)" as I previously pointed out. Searches on https://www.theguardian.com/us bring up 117,000 results for the words "TV programme" and 203,000 results for the words "tv programme". If focusing on the words in quotes, you get 2,600 results for "television programme," 5,870 results for "tv programme." The op can cite the style guide as listing television shows, but the same page DOES list "TV programmes" under titles, which is almost convient they skipped over that. The op also didn't say anything about this entry for the word "program" in the same style guide:

in Australia and the US, and for computer programs everywhere; otherwise programme in the UK: “I saw a fascinating TV programme about computer programs”

The OP can cite JSTOR searches, Google Scholar, or anywhwere else, but their search is inherently flawed as none of their searches ever included the words "tv program", "tv program" or "tv show." Whether you see the word "TV show" as veracular or not, the fact is that TV shows and TV programs are not always the same, as I noted previously. That's all I have to say at this time, ans I hope that others continue this discussion in earnest. As such, I still strongly oppose the change purposed by the OP and encourage others to follow suit.Historyday01 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01, several points here, which I will take one at a time:

Merriam-Webster defines a show as "a radio or television program" ... It seems clear to me that program/programme (depending on how you spell it) is broader than show. That's a non-sequitur: the MW definition as stated gives no basis for that assumption. It would help to have link to the definition, to allow verification.
Toonami is a programming block on Cartoon Network. Indeed it is, and is described in its lead as a programming block. That's why it is categorised in Category:Television programming blocks in the United States and Category:Cartoon Network programming blocks, rather than in a category of "television shows" or "television programs". This nomination will not change the categorisation of Toonami, so its mention here is a red herring.
The claim that my "clarity and consistency" rationale is based on only one page is false. The existence of the head article is only of any reasons offered in the nomination.
The claimed searches on https://www.theguardian.com/us are unlinked, so can't be verified: it's not clear what precise terms were used. It's also unclear what Historyday01 thinks those search results demonstrate. The fact that the results include both "program" and "programme" doesn't help make any decision about how to name categories.
The op can cite the style guide as listing television shows, but the same page DOES list "TV programmes" under titles, which is almost convenient they skipped over that. The op also didn't say anything about this entry for the word "program" in the same style guide
i checked https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-t, which list words and phrases beginning with the letter "T". The only entry for "television" is "television shows". I didn't look at the section under titles, and the claim that I conveniently skipped over is unfounded ABF. It is also irrelevant, because that section is about typography (italics and capitalisation), not about terminology.
The fact that the "program" section (on a different page) permits the phrase "television programme" is also irrelevant. I never claimed or implied that the Guardian/Observer somehow bans the phrase "television programmes" — my point is that "television shows" is acceptable terminology at the Guardian/Observer (neither deprecated as an American nor dismissed as informal), and so is suiatble term for UK usage per MOS:COMMONALITY.
There is nothing inherently flawed about searching for "television shows" and "television "television program(me)s" rather than "TV shows" or "TV program(me)s". The proposal is to rename to "television shows" not "TV shows", so I see no relevance to searching for the informal abbreviation.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me respond to @BrownHairedGirl. I cited the ~~Merriam-Webster~~ Dictionary.com definitions as examples that program and show are not the same, and from reading the definitions I came to the conclusion that program/programme is broader than show. In terms of Toonami, I understand this will not change the categorization of that page, but I was trying to make that as part of the point that programs/programmes and shows are not the same. In terms of the "clarity and consistency" rationale, I would not say it is based on only one page, but that page on television programs is a key part of your argument, which can be knocked down. In terms of the searches on https://www.theguardian.com/us, I literally used the search bar on their website, using the terms I noted in my comment. I was trying to say that the terms television program/program, and tv show are equally common terms on the site. Additionally, when it comes to the style guide, I was just pointing out you missed the entry for the word program. I'll let others make their conclusions about that. Furthermore, in terms of the searches, I do think something was missed by not looking for the terms "TV shows" or "TV program"(or "TV programmes"), which I would say undermines your argument, because not including those terms would limit your search results, as it is important to search for abbreviations, as not every article about shows or programs writes out the word television. Of all the reviews I have read of shows and programmes I like (mostly animations), I can't even remember one article where the reviewer writes out the word television, as they usually refer to "TV show" or "tv program."Historyday01 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01, you claim to cite Merriam-Webster, but the links you provide are to Dictionary.com. Please make up your mind which you are citing.

Furthermore, the links you provide are irrelevant: they are to dicdefs of the bare words "show" and "program", whereas we are discussing the phrases "television show" and "television program(me)".

Your continued ABF about the style guide is as irrelevant as it is uncivil, because once again you miss the whole point of the nomination: that it is about the equivalence of the phrases "television show" and "television program(me)", not about the existence of either.

You say that you are trying to make the point that programs/programmes and shows are not the same. That would be a relevant point if you were talking about the "television show" and "television program(me)" rather than the bare words ... but you have not produced a single reliable source which supports your claim that the phrases "television show" is narrower term than "television program(me)". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also opposing "series" for reasons mentioned above. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to hear that. Corrected my above comments per suggestion from OP at errors in naming of individual users.Historyday01 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support move all to '-- television shows' - This aligns with the main space article at television show. "Show" is the most common, generic, and lump term for these. WP:NCTV does actually use "show" as a lump term to cover program/mes, series, TV movies, etc. - and it being so general a term, it is not used in page titles for that reason. "Series" would not work as not everyting is a series. Even if one disagrees on it being the commonname, "show" is an opportunity for WP:COMMONALITY over the "progam/programme" problem. Lastly, its silly to think of "television show" as "vernacular" or too informal - it is a long-standing industry term and part of everyday speech. -- Netoholic @ 01:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"it is a long-standing industry term...".

Television industry glossary / terminology

Credits. Listings of all those involved in making a program, usually appearing at the end of a television program or film.
Cume. The total audience size (number of viewers) for a program or series of programs over several showings.
Edit. In television, to record from any program source altering the duration or temporal sequence of events....
Electronic Field Production. (EFP) Production of a television program or program segment by recording material on location....
Insert. A shot or sequence inserted into a television program used to illustrated a subject.
Master. The finished copy of a program from which copies are made for distribution.
Rating. The percentage of the total potential television homes tuned to a specific program.
Share. The percentage of the total television sets in use that are tuned to a specific program.
Titles. Graphic information appearing at the beginning of a program....

– Television Production Handbook, Glossary, pg. 99

BIOPIC
Short for 'biographical picture', a film (or, less frequently, a television programme)
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
A work that depicts sexual activity involving children...which have led to controversy over even critically acclaimed... television programmes like No Child of Mine (1997),
DIRECTOR
The person responsible for the physical creation of a film or television programme
PHONE-IN
A television or radio programme, usually broadcast live,
PRODUCER
The person ultimately responsible for the creation of a film or programme.
SPOOF
A film or television programme that pokes fun at specific films, genres or people for comic or satirical effect.

– Glossary, BFI Screenonline

Breakbumper An animation or logotype briefly shown after the end of a programme....
Closed Captioning Text version of a programme's dialogue....
Clutter An excessive number of non-programme elements (such as commercials)....
DBS - Direct Broadcasting (by) Satellite Television and radio programmes
DOG - Digitally Originated Graphic A station logo or slogan permanently displayed on screen during a programme.
Hammocking Placing a new or poorly-performing programme between two established popular programmes in order to boost viewing figures.
Live-on-tape A pre-recorded program produced in real time, usually with a studio audience, for later broadcast.
Nielsen Ratings Survey of US viewers by the AC Nielsen Company to establish the audiences for individual programmes and their demographics.
Producer ...the person responsible for an individual program - a radio producer or a television producer.
SB - Simultaneous Broadcasting British term for the broadcast of the same programme from multiple transmitters.
Sponsorship In the United States, the practice of a company funding the making of a program
Spot advertising A commercial or commercials run in the middle of or between programmes
Subtitles Text version of a programme's dialogue....
Teaser A part of a program played before the title sequence....

– Broadcasting Terminology, TranslationDirectory.com

Prime Broadcast Program Among Hispanics
Prime Broadcast Programs Among African-Americans
Prime Broadcast Programs Among Same Gender Spouse or Unmarried Partner - United States
Prime Cable Programs Among Same Gender Spouse or Unmarried Partner - United States

– Discover What Americans Are Watching, Playing, Listening To, and More., Nielsen Company (US)

Just a few samples of "program" or "programs" in the glossary:

ad hoc network: A group of stations that is formed for a special purpose, such as the showing of a one-time TV program or series
air show: A TV program as actually broadcast;
Area of Dominant Influence (ADI): ...An ADI rating was the percent of people viewing a specific TV program.
average audience (AA): The number of households tuned to a radio or TV program
billing: A listing of performers and others on a program,
blip: A brief interruption of sound on a program or tape; to interrupt or delete sound, as in blipping an expletive from a TV program.
broadcast: A single radio or TV program;
buy rate: In pay-per-view TV, the percentage of subscribers that purchase a program.
clip: A short segment of a program.
credit: Acknowledgment of work done....A pre-credits sequence starts a film or TV program before the title appears.
delayed broadcast (D.B.): The broadcast of a radio or TV program at a time later than its original transmission
dub: A dupe or duplicate;...also used as a verb, as in to dub something into the body of a radio or TV program
inherited audience: The segment of the audience of a radio or TV program that stays tuned and is carried over to the next program;
jump cut: A transition in a film or TV program that breaks continuous time
laugh track: The audio component of a TV situation comedy or other program on which audience laugher is inserted,
march on: Opening music titles, or other identification of a radio or TV program.
miniseries: A short series or sequence of related programs, such as one every night for five consecutive nights rather than one a week
net weekly audience: The number of individuals or households tuned in at least once a week to a daily radio or TV program
network: A group of radio or TV stations that broadcast the same programs.
off-network: A program available for syndication after it has been broadcast on a network.
on-scene show: A TV program produced at the site of an earlier murder, accident, or other event, sometimes reenacted.
opening billboard: The introduction of a radio or TV program, which may include highlights or names of the cast or sponsors.
outro: The standard conclusion of a radio or TV program;
pay-per-view TV (PPV): A system in which payment is made for a single showing of a program.
prefade or pre-fade: To start the final part of a radio or TV program
promo: ...the word refers to the preliminary advertisement or announcement of a radio or TV program,
PUT: Persons using television, the number of viewers watching television programs during a time period, expressed as the PUT-level.
running time: The time from the start to the end of a program,
satellite hit: Slang for a TV program that is successful because it follows a very popular program.
season: A period in the fall when new TV programs are introduced by the networks.
second season: A period after January when unsuccessful network television programs are replaced or rescheduled
soap opera: A dramatic serial TV program,
stripping: Preparing a series for reruns and syndication by reducing--stripping--or editing the programs,
stunting: The use of unusual techniques to develop audiences or customers, such as starting the TV season with a two-hour episode of a program that regularly lasts 30 or 60 minutes
take rate: In pay-per-view television, the percentage of subscribers who purchase the specific programs offered during a particular period,
tones and bars: A test pattern that precedes a TV program,
trailer: ...a promotional announcement at the end of a radio or TV program about a forthcoming program;
voice-over (VO): The sound of an unseen narrator on a TV program or film;
wraparound: The introductory and concluding segments of a program or series;

– Broadcast Terminology, Medialink Broadcasting Glossary (from Webster's New World Dictionary of Media and Communications by Richard Weiner)

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC); edited [+1 source] 09:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHERRYPICKING, and I'll not be participating in a tit-for-tat. Its no argument that ample sources can be found that use both terms. In fact, Google Ngrams shows a particular swap in prevalance of the terms with "show" now dominating in current sources. -- Netoholic @ 09:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No tits-for-tats about it. They're merely examples of the terminology used by the television industry, as published in reliable sources about the television industry. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary, I appreciate you putting together this list of the mentions of TV programs in various authoritative broadcast sources. That is helpful in disproving the claim by the OP.Historyday01 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01, that's a straw man. It does not in anyway disprove the claims in the nomination, because the nomination didn't claim that program(me) wis not used. The whole point of the nomination is that all three terms are used, so per MOS:COMMONALITY we use the one which is common to all varieties of English. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- This is an ENGVAR issues. When I (in England) watch the news on TV, I am watching a programme, not a "show". I have no objection to American categories being renamed if American WPans want that, but leave the rest of it alone. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- When the BBC write about the cancellation of the news programme by Victoria Derbyshire they call it a show: Victoria Derbyshire 'absolutely devastated' after her TV show is cut; Guardian BBC facing backlash over decision to axe Victoria Derbyshire show; Telegraph Victoria Derbyshire 'absolutely devastated' after BBC axes her show; New Statesman The BBC’s cancellation of The Victoria Derbyshire Show ends a lifeline for ordinary people. Jeremy Kyle Show. I must say as another UK resident I am astonished to hear that there is anything American about 'show'. 'Program' is American. Oculi (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Those are not great examples. The Jeremy Kyle programme is actually called "The Jeremy Kyle Show" so naturally it would come up as "show". Any programme that is called by the name of its presenter is liable to be called by that, regardless of its actual title. It would be more useful to name a serious programme that is called the "XYZ show". Deb (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Peterkingiron, the whole point of the nomination is to apply MOS:COMMONALITY, instead of having an avoidable WP:ENGVAR inconsistency. Oculi has provided evidence of how "television how" is common and acceptable use in British reliable sources, and the nomination also includes plenty of such evidence. It's a pity to see evidence being ignored in favour of unsupported assertions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi, while I see what you are saying, this is clearly an instance of cherrypicking as those are only selected articles in specific publications.--Historyday01 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standardise somehow. Sigh. The tree is a huge convoluted mess, and this is why I gave up trying to follow-up on the 2017 CfDs, some of which I initiated. I wouldn't be opposed to overturning the February 2017 CfD that renamed Category:Television programs by country to Category:Television shows by country, since it was indeed quite poorly attended. But the earlier December 2016 CfD also saw objections to programs/programmes. I'm not holding on to much hope that consensus can be squeezed out of this. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The more recent Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_31#Category:Television_programs, which reached the same conclusion, was not poorly attended. Oculi (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul_012, perhaps we could use the term "programmes" instead of using "programs" only because "programmes" seems more encompassing and would result in not having to change those currently named "programmes." I would also not be opposed to overturning the Feb. 2017 CfD which renamed "renamed Category:Television programs by country to Category:Television shows by country" as you noted.Historyday01 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure there will be those who say program/programmes should be allowed to vary per ENGVAR though. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul_012, the ENGVAR issue is precisely why I didn't make any such proposal in the nomination. I have previously proposed setting side ENGAVR for one letter of a category name, at the RFC on the spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names. The result was a shitstorm, in which an admin engaged in blatant votestacking, and the crew of antipodeans who he recruited furiously opposed the proposal on the grounds that the exclusion of their preferred spelling. It sparked several meta-dramas, and when it finally ended after five moths, the result was inconclusive.

I have little doubt that any proposal to standardise on either "programs" or "programmes" would cause a similar shitshow.

That is why in this case, I propose that we apply MOS:COMMONALITY, and used the globally-acceptable term "television shows" was has no ENGVAR issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion, perhaps this nomination can be relisted as a choice between option A, B and C (all shows, all programs or all programmes). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking the same. This needs to be a multiple choice offering solutions that cover the entire tree for there to be any hope of a clear outcome. Will need to be more detailed than the three choices you suggest though..--Paul_012 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Marcocapelle, see my reply above[1] to @Paul_012. My proposal a year ago to set aside ENGVAR in some category names ended as a disastrous megadrama.
    So please please please don't bring that idea into this discussion; the community is clearly not willing to set aside ENGVAR to standardise category names, and putting that on the table would only waste everyone's time. The only option for commonality is "shows". We can either adopt that, or reject MOS:COMMONALITY. If we keep a focus on that choice, we have a chance of reaching consensus one way or the other … but a breach-ENGVAR option would achieve nothing apart from creating a headache for the closer and for all participants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree that most usage equates program(me) with show, the latter which avoids spelling differences among various English variants. Series, as has been floated, I think is different in that one expects more than a one-off and would seemingly exclude news and (some) sports. Standardization makes sense, but I'm not so sold on "show" to really !vote for it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Matches main article and removes need for WP:ENGVAR differences. Evidence seems clear this is the normally accepted term in both US and UK. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The statement was made that changing "program/programmes" to "show", "aligns with the main space article at television show." About the article:
The request to move the name "Television program" to "Television show" was made on 18:57, 28 November 2017 by User:Netoholic. Three editors responded: 2 supported / 1 opposed. The page was moved on 00:04, 6 December 2017. Moving the article from "Television program" to "Television show" was based on the opinion of three editors. That's it.
Aside from the move proposal made in the article's Talk page, I looked at Requested moves/Archive 30 (28 May 2017–6 March 2018) and found no RM mention of "Television program → TV show". Then I went to WP:TV and searched Archive 25 (17 June 2017–29 January 2018) and did not find an announcement about the move discussion.
To see how involved with the article had been those who participated in the move proposal, I checked the Wikipedia Page History Statistics (edits and users) for the article and Talk page. As of 8 May 2020: Netoholic has made 10 edits to the article, the first on 30 November 2017; and 4 edits in the Talk page, all made on 28 November 2017‎. The first editor to support the proposal made only 1 edit to the article, on 6 December 2017; and only 1 edit in the Talk page, made on 2 December 2017‎. The second editor to support the proposal has not made any edits to the article; and only 1 edit in the Talk page, on 2 December 2017‎. The editor that opposed it has not made any edits to the article; and 2 edits in the Talk page, made on 4 December 2017‎.
I'm curious ... if the editors that replied in the "Requested move 28 November 2017" discussion never made any edits to the article before the proposed move was posted in the Talk page, and if the proposal does not appear in Requested moves, and was not announced in WikiProject Television (where it would have generated replies from a variety of editors interested in television related articles) -- how did the three editors find out about the request to change the article's title? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pyxis Solitary: the editors who commented in the RM discussion at Talk:Television show#Requested_move_28_November_2017 could have seen it any number of ways, including the listing at WP:RM; the listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts; by having the page on their watchlists; by spotting it in recent changes; by seeing it in the contribs of another editor. So the suspicion is unfounded.
  The archive page to which Pyxis Solitary links is Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 30. That's for discussions about the RM process; it is not an archive of RM discussions. If Pyxis Solitary had spent a few seconds scrutinising the page, they would have seen that, and might have refrained from cluttering up this CFD with a red herring.
  The RM discussion was properly listed in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions, which is transcluded in Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. It was added there[2] by the bot at 19:02, 28 November 2017 .... and removed[3] by the bot at 00:04, 06 December 2017, after the discussion was closed.
  The project was notified at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts. The RM was listed[4] by the bot on Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts on at 09:12, 29 November 2017. It remained there until it was removed[5] by the bot at 09:12, 13 December 2017.
  So far as I can see, there has been no RM discussion since then at Talk:Television show, and no other discussion of the page's title. However, there was a previous move proposal in 2008 at Talk:Television show/Archive_1#Proposed_move, which was never formally closed, but looks like no consensus.
  So this looks like a move proposal which followed all the proper processes, which was uncontroversial when proposed, and which has been uncontroversial for the 2½ years since the page moved. Pyxis Solitary's misguided attempt to query it now looks like a botched attempt at wikilawyering a decision which has been uncontroversial for the last 2½ years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Only thing missing in this spurious diatribe is the tin-foil hat. There was absolutely nothing improper or obfuscated about that RM discussion. Sometimes, an RM is sparsely-attended simply because no reasonable objection can be formed to refute the main assertion behind the move request. "Television show" (really "TV show") is the clearly dominate term for that topic across the English language. -- Netoholic @ 08:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes, an RM is sparsely-attended simply because no reasonable objection can be formed to refute the main assertion behind the move request." And other times it's because it isn't announced in the project related to the subject(s) of the proposal (every experienced editor knows that announcing a discussion in a project's talk page has the potential to attract many editors). Had I been aware of the move request, I would have opposed it. And judging by the responses that oppose this category rename proposal, so probably would have other editors. The best thing about Wikipedia is that any editor can request to have the article moved back to its original name, and support the request with the terminology most frequently used in the television industry. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: if the move was controversial but the discussion under-advertised, then there would have been a clamour of objections to the move, and a proposal to move it back. But after 2½ years, there have been no objections until this discussion, and no new RM discussion.

As your claim that "television program" is the terminology most frequently used in the television industry, neither you nor anyone else has offered a single scrap of evidence to support that claim. (Evidence has been offered that "program(me)" is used within the industry, which nobody disputes; but evidence the term has non-zero usage is not evidence that it is most frequently used).

Also, there is no en.wp policy basis for the idea of determining the commonname by usage with the industry. Policy is to follow usage in reliable sources ... and those reliable sources include both news media and academia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usage data for television program(me)s/shows edit

In response to some some comments about the usage data presented in the nomination, I have:

re-run the searches, separating out "program" from "programme" in all cases
Added three new reliable sources: the BBC, the New York Times and the Sydney Morning Herald, as examples of reliable sources from three major English-speaking countries.
Repeated the searches using "TV" instead of "television".

Tables below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	"Television show"	"Television program"	"Television programme"
The Guardian via Google	303	230	287
BBC via Google	267	135	248
New York Times via Google	323	296	11
Sydney Morning Herald via Google	291	295	54
JSTOR	11,600	11,763	3,215
Google Scholar	977	994	973

Source	"TV show"	"TV program"	"TV programme"
The Guardian via Google	350	289	294
BBC via Google	312	215	285
New York Times via Google	351	289	10
Sydney Morning Herald via Google	277	289	30
JSTOR	8,416	4,064	1,245
Google Scholar	968	991	980

These tables confirm that "television show"/TV show" is commonly used in the major reliable sources in the UK, Australia and the United States. The claim that "TV show" is predominantly American usage is therfore proven to be false.

To my mind, the most interesting results are those from JSTOR:

"Television show" gets 43% of the total hits for "Television show" + "Television program" + "Television programme"
"TV show" gets 61% of the total hits for "TV show" + "TV program" + "TV programme"
Combining the JSTOR results for "TV" and "television", "show" gets 49.7% of the total hits

So in a search of the most reliable sources, "TV show" is single most commonly used term. Its use therefore not just supported by MOS:COMMONALITY; it also has a marginal case per WP:COMMONNAME. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four claims have been advanced by opponents of using "show" which might, if proven, have made a good case for avoiding "show":

That "television show"/"TV show" is informal usage.
N Disproven: The data clearly shows that "television show"/"TV show" is widely used in reliable sources, including scholarly sources.
That "television show"/"TV show" is American usage.
N Disproven: The data clearly shows that "television show"/"TV show" is widely used in reliable sources in the UK and Australia
That "television show"/"TV show" has a different scope to "television program(me)"/"TV program(me)".
Additional information needed No evidence has been presented which supports this claim.
That "television program(me)"/"TV program(me)" is the preferred term in the TV industry.
Additional information needed No evidence has been presented which supports this claim ... and there is no policy basis for preferring industry terminology over the broad usage in reliable sources.

There have also been various red herrings and straw men. But those 4 main arguments all fail. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OP, @BrownHairedGirl, I appreciate your effort to advocate your point. If anything, you do have tenacity and that is a good skill. Even with the new sources, I still think that is used more in U.S. publications than elsewhere, although it is of course used in "major reliable sources in the UK, Australia and the United States." No one is doubting that. However, as words like "programme" are of British origin, they are likely to be used more in British publications than U.S. publications which would rather use "program." I'll let the others argue about TV show being informal or anything of that sort. Instead I'd like to make a different argument. Taking into account all the data you have presented for the words "television show", "TV show", "TV", "television", and "show" on JSTOR or any of he results you found in The Guardian, BBC, New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, JSTOR, and Google Scholar there is still a fundamental problem with your sources. Not even mentioning the undoubted false drops in your search results, which are inevitable due to the lack of search parameters you used, the sources are English language-based. How do your results justify changing the following non-English language programs/programmes?

List of 171 categories which have non-English programs/programmes

There many be some others as well, but these were the only ones that appeared to not be in English. This undermines your claims as the above constitutes about 36.3% of your original list. I would not call the above a red herring or straw men. The simple fact is that your searches ignore the fact that the above named programs/programmes aired in countries where English is not the main language cannot be said to automatically use "show" rather than "program" or "programme." For instance, the reports by Association of Japanese Animators primarily use the term "program" rather than "show" in their industry reports, with the number of times each of those reports use the word "program" is shown below:

"Anime Industry Report 2014 Summary"	"Anime Industry Report 2015 Summary"	"Anime Industry Report 2016 Summary"	"Anime Industry Report 2017 Summary"	"Anime Industry Report 2018 Summary"
3	15	18	17	18

This can be verified by doing a search of the reports in this format if you don't believe me. I did also search for the term "shows" in all of the above reports, and it was generally not used to refer to anime programs, except two times in the 2015 report talking about "short animation shows," and in non-TV related contexts (like in the 2016 report), but rather to say that a map or graphic showed something was the case. I'm trying to say that those in non-English speaking countries do not necessarily use the word "shows" rather than "programs," and assuming they do just because some English-language sources use both words is a travesty.

In sum, the replacement of the words "program" or "programme" with "shows" is clearly Anglocentric idea, which tends toward Americentrism in the sense that the decision to change these terms shows an "occasional preference towards US English sources, language, and spelling," to quote from the Americentrism page, with your results having a systemic bias to support your desired outcome. @Pyxis Solitary brought this up before, when they stated that "the attempts to Americanize Wikipedia needs to stop," which is a sentiment I agree with. Also, as @Deb noted earlier, the word "show" cannot and would not be used to describe many UK TV programs as it is "too American." They concluded that the term is only used due to its oft-use in North America. They further noted, even though British publications use the word show, "that doesn't make it better, and doesn't justify the proposed move." As such, this is an WP:ENGVAR issue, as @Peterkingiron noted, although I disagree with their position that American categories should be renamed. They did point out that when they watch television in England they are watching a "programme" rather than a "show." Even when @Oculi said that they were "astonished to hear that there is anything American about 'show'" as a UK resident, they admitted that the word "'Program' is American," with the former statement bolstering my argument this an Anglocentric change.

I strongly disagree with the stance taken by @El Millo in support of the OP and the move of ALL the pages to "television shows." Wikipedia should be using the accurate term not the supposedly "most common, generic, and lump term," with their point about "television show"(s) as "vernacular" or too informal, claiming it "is a long-standing industry term and part of everyday speech" disproven by the research by @Pyxis Solitary. Pyxis noted the terminology used in the section about "Television industry glossary / terminology", which is informative to this discussion as well. I am sympathetic with the arguments to standardize the existing terms, as Gonnym (which does not want to be pinged for this discussion) noted before, to either "program" or "programme" but I do not support changing ANY of the categories suggested by the op from the word "programs"/"programmes" to "shows." If those categories for specific shows are underneath these categories which specify certain programs/programmes, as it is a broader term. As @IJBall pointed out earlier, "TV series" is a "subset" of "TV program" with series implying "continuing elements such as an ongoing story," while a "TV program" is "broader and includes other types of TV programming such as news programming, game shows and talk shows." Again, the word "shows" should not replace "programs" or "programmes."

As always, I look forward to the continuation of a productive discussion, having laid out my arguments above in more detail, building on those by other editors who are more experienced than I am. I may not know everything, and would never make that claim, but I can say with absolute certainty that the proposal put forward by the OP four days ago on May 6th is clearly wrong and should be opposed without question.Historyday01 (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: why do you keep saying that it is Americentrism, when BHG's research clearly shows that it is widely used in a variety of English-speaking sources, includes some from the UK and Australia? Those are claims you still need evidence for. I find it especially strange how you use Oculi's comment apparently in your favor, when he clearly disagrees with your notion that 'show' is an American term. About the research BHG did, how do you measure the use of "show" and "program/programme" in non-English-speaking sources? In some languages, there's not even a difference between 'show' and 'program', because only one term exists. In some other languages, there may be more terms by which to refer to a TV show, program or programme. BHG's research refuted the claim that 'show' is an American term. In order to see if 'show' it is also used in somewhat equal terms with 'program' and 'programme' in other English language sources from countries whose primary language isn't English, we must do further research. But if we are going to standardize, we must choose a term that is widely used in the majority of English language sources. If there are one or two countries in which 'show' isn't widely used, they'll be in the minority, and will have to be changed to 'show' regardless.

Now, from your comment, I'm getting a sense that you disagree not only with standardizing to 'shows' but with standardizing in the first place. Tell me if I'm wrong, but perhaps we should start with if we should or shouldn't have them all use the same term, and then, if consensus is formed in favor of standardizing, we can discuss which term to use. El Millo (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01 is spot on here. In the Welsh language, for example, "rhaglen" (programme) is always used for TV programmes while "sioe" is reserved for events like stage musicals. It is therefore disturbing that you want to force us to use the term "show" for Welsh-language programmes. The usage you favour most certainly is an Americanism - perhaps the reason you are not aware of this is because you use US spellings like "favor" and "standardizing" in your normal speech and therefore other spellings may seem odd to you. Deb (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: just so it's clear, my first language isn't English. Sometimes I use one spelling, sometimes the other. Honestly, I have a spell-checking app that uses American English only, so it marks words like "programme", "standardising" o "colour" as a mistake, and it bothers me to see them underlined so I change them to American spelling. Now, I'll give an example of why seeing which word is used is some other language may be flawed. I'll use my own country as an example. Here, we say "programa", which is pretty much a direct translation from "program/me", but when speaking English we would always say "TV show" instead of "TV program/me". It would be alright to check sources written in English from those countries whose first language isn't English, but doing a translation as you did with Welsh will most likely take us to flawed results. El Millo (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I recognise that you have learned the American form of English. It's not your fault but it's the reason you can't recognise why other people are saying that "show" is an Americanism.Deb (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. In my first years, it was definitely British English. Then it became more of a mix. It's not that I don't recognise it, I'm perfectly aware of the differences between the varieties of English and how some Americans tend to think their version is the "correct one". Countless times I've seen American editors change Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, or change "instalment" to "installment" in articles about British films where there even was a hidden note which stated "instalment" was the right term to use (It actually just happened). But what we have here is an assertion from some of you that 'show' is an Americanism without actual evidence. BHG's research shows it is widely used in British sources. Below, Historyday apparently isn't arguing for Americentrism anymore, but for Anglocentrism, in light of BHG's research. El Millo (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb, please remember that this is the English-language Wikipedia, so we follow English-language sources. The policy at WP:COMMONNAME is very clear about this:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.

In this case, an ENGVAR spelling issue means that we do not have a single term used in the majority of independent, reliable English-language sources, so we apply MOS:COMMONALITY, and the common term is "show".

Deb's point would be a central consideration if we were discussing how to name categories on the Welsh-language Wikipedia, but that would be a whole different discussion in which the relevant evidence would be of usage in Welsh-language sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten that. The point being so ably made by Historyday01 is that regional and national variations in the English language shouldn't be ignored in the interests of homogeneity. When referring to Welsh-language television programmes, it seems only reasonable that the normal phraseology used in Wales should be used. I think by repeatedly hammering your points home after every contribution in this discussion, whilst implying that all other viewpoints are somehow factually flawed, you are unlikely to achieve compromise and will only antagonise and upset others involved in this discussion. Deb (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb, I make zero apology for challenging unevidenced assertions, logical fallacies and proposed breaches of policy. If there were fewer of them, I would make fewer replies.

Your claim that When referring to Welsh-language television programmes, it seems only reasonable that the normal phraseology used in Wales should be used is:

unsupported by any evidence of English-language use in Wales
a contradiction of MOS:COMMONALITY.

I tested usage in English-language sources in Wales, using two newspapers: Western Mail as the only national newspaper in Wales, and the Daily Post as the biggest-circulation regional newspaper.

Source	"Television show"	"Television program"	"Television programme"	"TV show"	"TV program"	"TVprogramme"
Western Mail	288	3	284	338	5	293
Daily Post	109	1	133	288	2	229

Both sources show a narrow majority for "show" over "program"+"programme": "show" gets 51.7% of all the hits on the Western Mail, and 52.1% of all hits on the Daily Post.

The Western Mail is not identical with WalesOnline. Deb (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that includes coverage of all television programmes, not just Welsh-language programmes. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that English-language reliable sources in Wales adjust their terminology when discussing Welsh-language television. But if you want to claim that English-language reliable sources in Wales adjust their terminology from "shows" to "programmes" when discussing Welsh-language television, then I look forward to seeing the evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01, your long post above at 01:08, 11 May is riddled with misundestandings and misrepesentations. For clairity, I will summarse them as a list:

Your opening comments again miss the core issue of the nomination, which is that we shoud adopt MOS:COMMONALITY: where a common term is available, use it. You don't dispute that we have a common term, so the rest of your post is irrelevant.
You state that as words like "programme" are of British origin, they are likely to be used more in British publications than U.S. publications which would rather use "program". This is yet more assertion, rather than evidence. The evidence in reliable sources is clear that "television show" is one of three variants commonly used in British English (see the data from the BBC and The Guardian). Note in particular that the BBC, as the UK's national broadcaster, uses "show" slightly more than "programme".
You comment Not even mentioning the undoubted false drops in your search results, which are inevitable due to the lack of search parameters you used, the sources are English language-based. That is bizarre:
- what on earth are the false drops and the lack of search parameters you used? I searched for the relevant terms, in reliable sources. Your words are just an attempt to discredit my searches without demonstrating any specific failings. If done maliciously, that's a smear tactic; otherwise it's an incompetent attempt at a critique.
- Your criticism that the sources are English language-based is simply you rejecting en.wp policy. WP:COMMONAME is explicitly based on English-language reliable sources.
Your list of categories for non-English-language TV is another a red herring. The test per WP:COMMONNAME is of usage in English-language reliable sources, and the usage in those other languages is not relevant. The data from JSTOR and Google scholar gives us clear evidence of usage in worldwide English-language scholarly sources.
Your table of usage in an several annual issues of an anime industry publication is irrelevant for two reasons:
- it is a single publication. You have previously been challenged for engaging in the logical fallacy of cherry picking, and it's a pity to see you doing it again, clogging up the discussion with yet more fallacious arguments.
- Not one of the 471 categories nominated is specifically about anime. So even if we were silly enough to indulge your cherry-picking of an individual source, it would be irrelevant.
You assert that the replacement of the words "program" or "programme" with "shows" is clearly Anglocentric idea. The data shows that statement to be proven false: "shows" is widely used in Australia and the USA.
In that paragraph you refer to Anglocentric, then go on to talk about Americentrism. You should make up your mind what your argument is before writing a paragraph on it, because the switcheroo from "Anglocentric" to "Americentric" just makes your case incoherent and self-contradictory.
You state Wikipedia should be using the accurate term not the supposedly "most common, generic, and lump term". That is:
- a direct contradiction of the policy of WP:COMMONNAME. If you want to chnage that policy, then open an RFC to propose changing policy ... but until policy is changed, we apply the policy as it is now, not as how Historyday01 would like it to be.
- Your claim that "program(me)" is the accurate term is unsupported by any evidence other than random cherry picking. It is simply your personal assertion, based on a logical fallacy.
- This has echoes of your bogus assertion at 20:35, 6 May that Merriam-Webster defines a show as 'a radio or television program' and a programme/program as 'a performance or series of performances, often presented at a scheduled time, esp on radio or television.'. Those assertions are falsifications of evidence:
  - Merriam-Webster has no entry for "television show"[6], for "TV show"[7], for "television programme"[8], for "TV programme"[9], for "television program"[10], or for "TV program"[11]. Its entries for the bare words "program"[12] and "show"[13] do not contain the phrases you cite, and a google search of MW for each those phrases gives no hits for your claimed definition of "program". Fake evidence is highly disruptive conduct.
Your claim that usage of show within the TV industry was disproven by the research by @Pyxis Solitary is both risible and irrelevant:
- it is risible because Pyxis Solitary cited only a single source. That's just more cherry picking.
- It is irrelevant because your self-invented notion of preferring industry sources to scholarly sources is contradicted by policy at WP:COMMONNAME, which prioritises independent, reliable English-language sources. You continued failure to read the relevant policy looks like WP:IDHT.

So in summary, your whole case is a pile of unevidenced assertions, self-contradictions, falsified evidence, red herrings and other irrelevancies, logical fallacies, and rejections of Wikipedia policy. It is a great pity that you have and Pyxis disrupted this discussion with such verbose follies, which require a lot of time and words to deconstruct.

If you want to participate in a consensus-forming discussion such as this without continued disruption, please be a heck of a lot more rigorous. These multiply-fabricated justifications of your WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance should have no place in building an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El Millo, I stand by what I said. I realize that Oculi's comment is not necessarily in my favor. I only pointed it out because he noted that the term program is an English term, that's all. You can say the op's research "clearly shows that it is widely used in a variety of English-speaking sources, includes some from the UK and Australia" but again I would say that that the OP, @BrownHairedGirl, is still using English-based sources. I'm not sure how to measure the use of show or program/programme in non-English based sources, but I am sure that there are scholarly publications for each of those countries and industry sources that could be consulted. That burden is on the OP. The fact that over 30% of their entries cannot be proven by the OP's findings does necessitate further research. That is something I agree with you on. But I am not doing that research, as that burden is on the OP to do the research. As for saying that show is an American term, I am asserting something different, that it is an English-language term, used primarily in America and in extension in English-speaking countries like Australia and the UK. As for standardizing terms, like "program" or "programme" not something like "shows," @Deb makes a valid point that "regional and national variations in the English language shouldn't be ignored in the interests of homogeneity." That is not something you, nor the OP, seem to care about at all. In terms of citing more English-language sources, that's nice they are used in English-language publications, but why not look at some foreign language publications for a change? Continually doing searches on google to "prove" your point doesn't make it any stronger.Historyday01 (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: Regarding categories for non-English-language shows, the best we can do is search for the terms in English-language sources from those comments. See my response to Deb above, doing a translation from sources in other languages than English would lead to flawed results, since not all languages have respective terms to both "TV show" and "TV program/me". And you didn't answer my question, which I actually phrased like an assertion to be disproven, so I get it. Are you in favor of standardizing and using the same term, whichever of these it ends up being, on all these categories? Because if you aren't, this discussion has to start all over again. El Millo (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now, onto the OP's response. They state that my post is "riddled with misundestandings and misrepesentations." I tend to disagree. I would not say my post is irrelevant. In saying that "words like "programme" are of British origin, they are likely to be used more in British publications than U.S. publications which would rather use "program"" is yes, an assertion, I agree. I am trying to say that different English-speaking countries use different terms, as programme is used more often in Britain, Australia, and likely in former British colonies like Kenya and Zimbabwe, while program is used in the United States and perhaps in U.S. territories. Again, this is an assertion, but I am saying that there are regional differences in the usage of words, which anyone with half a brain would recognize. Furthermore, there is no doubt that the word "show" or "shows" are often used, but so are "program" and "programmes." In terms of mentioning false drops, I am only pointing out that there did not seem to be many search parameters on your searches. Admittedly, there were likely false drops of my results too, but I thought that was worth pointing out, as neither of our searches were narrowly concerned. I don't know what the false drops of your search were, as I didn't conduct the search, but every single search has false drops, as none of these search tools are perfect. Moving on, when I am saying that "the sources are English language-based," I stand by that remark. If you didn't want to change sources which had shows which are not in English, that would be a different sources. However, you do, and the research you have done does not prove your claim. I would not say that my list of categories is a red herring. I would have to disagree that the "usage in those other languages is not relevant" as you listed shows which are not English language. I am aware that is a single publication, but it is the only one I could think off hand, which I used on one of the wikipedia pages I created, which is the only reason I brought up. And yes, I am aware that none of the 471 categories nominated is about anime, but I am pointing out that those in other countries do not necessarily use "show" rather than "program" or "programme." I stand by my statement that "the replacement of the words "program" or "programme" with "shows" is clearly Anglocentric idea" as I am saying that it is English language-centric. In terms of referring to Americentrism, I used that page in a qualified manner, only including it because of this line: "English Wikipedia has been criticized for having an Americentric systemic bias with regards to its occasional preference towards US English sources, language, and spelling." That's it. In this case, its more of an English language-centric argument you are making, but I think the general sentiment still applies. You can continue to declare that I'm going against WP policies, and cherry picking, but I tend to disagree. Both us are making personal assertions in some way or another, just to be clear. When I cited ~~Merriam-Webster~~ Dictionary.com, here are the definitions I was citing this page for the word "programme" (its under the title "British Dictionary definitions for programme (1 of 2)", see the second listing) and this page for the word show (its the 20th definition on the page). Also, there is this result, no. 3 as noted here for the word "program": "a broadcasted television or radio production or similar Internet-based content produced for distribution" which I just found. So, no, OP, I am NOT engaged in "fake evidence." ~~The fact you couldn't even find the above listings from dictionary.com shows a lack in your research skills~~. I stand by my defense of @Pyxis Solitary's research. I do prefer industry sources, although I respect scholarly sources. I would say you have chosen some great sources, but in no way what you have presented is comprehensive. The burden is on YOU as the OP to prove your case, and I would say you have not done so, especially when it comes to justifying changes to pages about programs which are not in the English language. I would not say I "disrupted" this discussion but rather countered your points. In terms of a "consensus-forming discussion," I don't see anything close to a consensus on here. I see those three camps: one in support of your position, those opposed, and another which support or oppose some elements of your proposal. At the present there does not seem to be anything close to a consensus from what I can tell. I don't hold anything against you for trying to make this change, as I admire your spirit and determination, although I disagree with your proposal. I don't want to dominate this discussion, so I'll just pop in every so often, as to increase the users who are responding here.Historyday01 (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask Deb and Pyxis Solitary as well: are you in favor of standardizing in the first place? Meaning we pick one of the three and use it in all these categories. El Millo (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, my response to the question got deleted (I think I may have accidentally deleted it myself), so I'm restoring it: "No, I'm not in favour of standardising. It's unnecessary. As long as there are redirects - which there will have to be in any case - I see no good reason for it. Deb (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)"Deb (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should've started there. This whole discussion has been a massive waste of time. El Millo (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Facu-el Millo: Obviously I shouldn't have deleted my own reply to you - that goes without saying. But this discussion isn't only about that, or shouldn't be. It should be about all the factors that affect a final decision. There is no Wikipedia guideline that takes priority over consensus, and my personal opinion as to whether standardising is the right way to go in this particular case is only one of many factors that need to be considered. But I'll elaborate: in some cases standardisation is helpful; in this case I don't agree that it is. If you think the discussion is a waste of time just because I disagree with you, then why ask the question? Deb (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: What I meant is that I spent a lot of time trying to convince both you and Historyday that "show" was the right term to use, when I should've been trying to convince you that standardization was the right thing to do. There would be no way you'd accept that when you weren't even into the idea of standardizing, and most of your arguments (especially Historyday's) showcased that. I just wish that had been contained within your rationale for your initial Oppose. El Millo (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Facu-el Millo: Don't misunderstand me, my rationale is not based on a dislike of standardisation, it's based on the fact that, in British English, "programme" is the right word to use (because it covers everything, not just "shows") and that there is no need to force US English on category titles that apply only to the UK. Deb (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb, mountains of evidence has been presented that "television show" is not just US English, and that it is widely used in the UK. It's a pity that you choose to ignore that evidence and instead just repeat unevidenced assertions.

Your claim that "shows" has a narrower scope is again unsupported by any evidence. It also disproven by the evidence posted by Historyday01 of usage in major dictionaries, in which 4 out of the 5 dictionaries which have entry for "television show" define it as a synonym pf "television program(me)". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A synonym. Deb (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a synonym. But it is not clear what point Deb is trying to make.

It doesn't matter whether there are other synonyms, unless someone wants to make the case that some other synonym is also commonly used in all varieties of English and could therefore be adopted per [MOS:COMMONALITY]]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El Millo, it has not been a waste of time. Deb's personal opposition to standardising cannot override MOS:COMMONALITY, and the closer is obliged to disregard !votes which are not founded in policy.

If Deb — or any other editor — wants to overturn MOS:COMMONALITY, then WP:RFC is thataway. Unless and until there is a broad consensus to overturn MOS:COMMONALITY, that is principle against which this proposal is judged. The timewasting consist solely of the disruption by a few editors who reject MOS:COMMONALITY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a collapsed section above titled "Television industry glossary / terminology". It shows that within the television industry, the term used most frequently to describe a television production is program (US) or programme (UK). I could have included more sources (for example, TDGA and AAI), but the purpose was not to create a wall of information overload.
Some categories have undergone a change in spelling from British to American, but whether it's "programme" or "program", either one is acceptable to me. If I had to standardise between one or the other, then for the sake of across-the-board similarity I'd pick "Program".
The WP definition of "encyclopedia": "An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (British English) is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge either from all branches or from a particular field or discipline....Traditional encyclopedias' reliability, on their side, stand upon authorship and associated professional expertise. Many academics, teachers, and journalists rejected and continue to reject open, crowd sourced encyclopedias, especially Wikipedia, as a reliable source of information, and Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source according to its own standards because of its openly editable and anonymous crowdsourcing model." In the case of terminology, perhaps the least that can be done is to err on the side of professionalism. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, Pyxis Solitary repeats the logical fallacy that a handful of cherry-picked instances of usage are "program(me)" are evidence that "show" is not used within a particular context.

In any case, the whole notion of testing usage within the TV industry is a breach of policy, because WP:COMONNAME is explicit that the relevant usage is that in

independent, reliable English-language sources

... and sources within the industry are by definition not independent.

WP:SOURCES is also very clear that scholarly sources are to be preferred.

It is a great pity that both Pyxis Solitary and Historyday01 did not check policy before pursuing their industry-first hobbyhorse. Their continued pursuit of this hobbyhorse even after numerous pointers to the actual en.wp policy is disruptive, and there is a deep irony in PS's appeal to professionalism in enyclopedia-building while rejecting the encyclopedia's policy on the primacy of scholarly sources over trade talk. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"sources within the industry are by definition not independent. WP:SOURCES is also very clear that scholarly sources are to be preferred."
Well, then: any source with past or present ties to the television industry is not "independent". This includes anything authored by a television critic. It also includes any coverage of television matters published in The Guardian, BBC, New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, The Local, Hindustan Times, The Times of India, any and all newspaper and magazine popular literature reporting and writing about television subjects. This would also include any scholarly opinion, article, and book authored by someone with a history of work in the television industry, regardless of whether it was a brief amount of time or longer, because be it major or minor, personal and professional knowledge was gained within the industry. Since sources with any ties to the television industry are not "independent", and since anything authored by an individual or editorial staff with links to the television industry is not an "independent" source, then any citations in television-related articles that are not authored by completely independent sources should be deleted, including scholarly literature authored by individuals with any connections whatsoever in the television industry.
(For others reading this: I know that by responding to BHG, I am opening the door to another jeremiad. Sorry everyone. Sometimes a statement shouldn't get a pass.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's great pity that a consensus-forming discussion is cluttered by absurdist notions such as this claim that newspaper journalism in part of the "television industry". As usual with Pyxis Solitary, no evidence is provided for this latest invention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01, I don't want to clutter up this page with another long reply to your latest comment, which is sadly replete with all the flaws I mentioned above. So I will take just four points out of the many I could raise:

there are regional differences in the usage of words, which anyone with half a brain would recognize. Of course thee are regional differences. But when discussing a proposal based in MOS:COMMONALITY, and after lots of replies to you in which you have been pointed again towards MOS:COMMONALITY, I would hope that an editor with even 1% of a brain would have grasped by now that the principle of MOS:COMMONALITY is not to find regional variations, but to find a common term which can be used in all regions.
when I am saying that 'the sources are English language-based,' I stand by that remark. That's a pity, because you were replying to a post in which I had specifically linked to and quoted rom the relevant policy. I'll do it again: The policy at WP:COMMONNAME is very clear about this:
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.

Which part of independent, reliable English-language sources is unclear to you? Read it again, with emphasis: English-language sources
You write: When I cited Merriam-Webster, here are the definitions I was citing this page. That link is to https://www.dictionary.com; Merriam-webster is at https://www.merriam-webster.com.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/about/ says Dictionary.com’s main, proprietary source is the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
That is now the second time that I have drawn your attention to this discrepancy, and it's serious: you are fabricating your sources. Frankly, if you are still unable or unwilling to stop misrepresenting even the source of your citations, then my concerns about disruptiveness gather weight to the point where they may require escalation.
I do prefer industry sources, although I respect scholarly sources. You personal preference contradicts policy at WP:COMMONNAME and at WP:SOURCES. Please note in particular that COMMONNAME stresses independent sources. i.e. not industry sources. The closer is obliged to disregard arguments which contradict policy.

So I repeat: your whole case is a pile of unevidenced assertions, self-contradictions, falsified evidence, red herrings and other irrelevancies, logical fallacies, and rejections of Wikipedia policy. It is a great pity that you have and Pyxis disrupted this discussion with such verbose follies, which require a lot of time and words to deconstruct.

If you want to participate in a consensus-forming discussion such as this without continued disruption, please be a heck of a lot more rigorous. These multiply-fabricated justifications of your WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance should have no place in building an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS @Historyday01 wrote The fact you couldn't even find the above listings from dictionary.com shows a lack in your research skills.

That is a disgraceful comment. the reason I didn't find those phrases on Merriam-Webster is because they are not from Merriam-Webster. They are on Dictionary.com, and your claim that they were on Merriam-Webster is a fabrication.

I object very strongly to your choice to use your own fabrication of sources as a basis to insult my research skills. If you have an ounce of integrity, you will strike and withdraw both your disruptive fabrications and the personal insult which you made to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the conversation edit

The discussion is getting too long, so there should probably be another section. I appreciate the effort by @El Millo who seems to be more cooperative than the OP at this point. I'm personally a bit unsure about standardization, due to regional differences as I've noted earlier but if it will be considered at all, I ~~vote~~ say that the word "shows" be thrown out, and the choice only be between using "programmes" or "programs."Historyday01 (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: what is it that makes you doubt standardization? In doing so, the use of each of the three terms would be measured in all countries included, at least in the ones where English-language sources are found. Then, if there's one that stands above the rest in most of them, then that will be the one we choose. The thing is, there might be one or two cases in which the word we end up using isn't widely used there, but we will still be using the word the majority of countries use. Now, if "show" were to stop being considered, I think "programmes" would have to be the de facto choice, given that "program" is used in an entirely different context in British English.

But I still haven't seen the evidence against using "show", whether of its claimed informality or its Americentrism. The term "show" is widely used in the UK, Australia, and Wales, as shown already. What is it wrong exactly with the research BHG has already done? Is it incomplete? Ok. But I see no flaw in the numbers of the countries she included. I understand your argument about Anglocentrism, but checking for English-language sources in those other countries would address your concern. Thanks to BHG, part of the research has already been done. The USA is done, the UK is done, Australia is done, and Wales is done. There are many more to go. El Millo (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, El-Millo, I am NOT arguing "for Americentrism" or "for Anglocentrism" but rather opposing it, just to be clear.--Historyday01 (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know. What I meant was that your argument changed from saying that 'show' was Americentric to saying that it was Anglocentric. El Millo (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El Millo, any notion that we need to check individual usage in each of the world's 200-plus countries from Abkhazia to Zimbabwe is a recipe for making no decision about any set of descriptive category titles, because the task would be far too time-consuming. The principle of WP:COMMONALITY is simple: use a globally-acceptable term if it is available, and handle exceptions if there is evidence for them. Historyday01 has not even attempted to identify a single example of a country where "show" is not an acceptable term.

I have checked usage in the countries which represent the major variants of English (UK, US, Australia), and that should be sufficient to establish that "show" is an acceptable term in all of them.

I have also checked the global databases of scholarly sources, which per WP:COMMONNAME/WP:SOURCES are the preferred sources. They clearly demonstrate that "show" is widely used.

The further check of Wales was in response to a comment from an editor who claimed that Wales uses different terminology. I should probably have it to that editor to provide some evidence that English-language sources in Wales followed a different pattern, but I decided to test it myself. I hope that does not provide any precedent for other editors making unsubstantiated claims.

Please note that Historyday01 has been churning out red herrings, contra-policy principles, faked sources, and has engaged in cherry-picking as a substitute to providing evidence of the balance of usage. So please be wary of their disingenuous attempt to manufacture a test which would leave us unable to choose a name for anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am now searching for the terms in the seven editions of the multi-regional English-language newspaper The Local from countries that are included in this list of categories: Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, and Sweden. After that, maybe check for New Zealand, India, and perhaps one or two other countries. I think that should be enough. After that, we'll see what's the preferred term in each of these countries. Whichever terms adds up more may be the right term to use. El Millo (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's your time, El Millo, but I don't think that such detailed research is a productive use of it. It seems to me that the commonality of the term "show" has already been demonstrated, and that usage in a single, relatively minor publication adds little value, because it more likely reflects in-house style than wider usage in relation to that country.

Please remember too that per MOS:COMMONALITY, the goal is not to find the most commonly-used term. It is to find a term which is accepted across multiple countries, to avoid the need for ENGVAR variations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, are you now claiming that "programme" is not acceptable throughout the world? Deb (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Deb. The data clearly shows that "programme" is almost unused in the United States, and is also little-used in Australia. Both countries prefer "program" or "show". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this discussion has gone a long way since my comments. Whew. Considering what the OP is saying, and the question @Deb asked, it isn't helping their argument. If they want the choice to be between "program" and "show," then I put my support for "program."Historyday01 (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Historyday01, which part of WP:NOTAVOTE is unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying vote as an expression, saying I would have supported that ultimate decision. As you can see from my below discussion, I have dropped all attempts at compromise, as I feel it is a waste of time, and will continue my opposition.--Historyday01 (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on, I am glad that the OP, @BrownHairedGirl realizes there are regional differences, and would hope that they remove all the non-English language programs (all the ones I listed in the "List of 171 categories which have non-English programs/programmes") from the original proposal of changing "program"/"programmes" to "shows". In terms of Merriam-Webster, I made a mistake there, and I admit that mistake, but people make mistakes all the time. I would not say this means I am fabricating sources. Again, the burden to prove your point with sources if with you, not me, and I do not believe you have met the burden of proof. In terms of English-language sources, if you insist on using them, I would believe there are English language sources for all the countries you originally noted. If there aren't English language sources available for those countries, then remove them from consideration! Its that simple. Some of your other comments sing the same tune as before, so I'm not going to reply to that. My opposition to your proposal goes beyond not liking it, rather I think it is fundamentally flawed. In terms of dictionary.com, I stand by what I said, and will soon go back to accurately note the sources in those comments and add in "dictionary.com". I was under the false impression they were owned by Merriam-Webster, but they are not. ~~In terms of the other comments, I do think your research methods are not as rigorous as they could be.~~ In the end, your quest to change these categories is a faulty one which I will continue to stand against. I have already suggested some changes, but I doubt they will be considered at this point.--Historyday01 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01, please stop creating straw man. I acknowledged in the nomination that there are variations in usage. The whole point of the proposal is apply MOS:COMONALITY and use a common term across those variations. So your claim that I belatedly "realizes there are regional differences is just more nonsense.

As your request that they remove all the non-English language programs; no, I definitely will not. I have already explained to you repeatedly that policy is to use the terminology used in English-language sources, so there is no need basis in policy for treating those categories any differently. (One of the most exasperating things about communicating with you is your sustained failure to show any sign of having grasped the substance of replies to you.)

Your false assertions about Merriam-Webster were repeated several times, despite being challenged. Your initial failure may be a "mistake", but your decision to repeat the same fakery after multiple pointers to it is at best a reckless disregard for truth. And I note that despite my request that you strike your comment that my failure to find the claimed content in Merriam-Webster was a lack in your [BHG's] research skills, you have left that in situ. You recklessly repeated a falsehood, ignoring warnings, and then make a personal attack on me for accurately detecting your failing. That game of smearing others for detecting your own misrepresentations is thoroughly obnoxious conduct, and your failure to retract (let alone apologise, as a half-way decent person would do profusely) bears no resemblance to the conduct of a competent editor acting in good faith.

Similarly, your comment I do think your research methods are not as rigorous as they could be is just more gratuitous personal abuse. You have indulged in cherrypicking, making straw men, misrepresenting sources, repeatedly ignoring policy, and even though you have not demonstrated a single flaw in my research methods you choose to just make unsubstantiated smears against my research. I can just about AGF that you are not intentionally being a troll, but your barrage of falsehoods, unevidenced assertions and unsubstantiated smears, is unpleasantly similar to the conduct of an actual troll. Whatever the cause of your conduct, dealing with this sort of persistently irrational, counter-factual, policy-averse nonsense is one of the things that can make editing Wikipedia a sickeningly time-wasting and exasperating experience. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hereby the research:

Source		"Television show"	"Television program"	"Television programme"
The Local	Danish edition via Google	2	0	8
	French edition via Google	41	1	20
	German edition via Google	91	7	69
	Italian edition via Google	20	0	9
	Norweigan edition via Google	7	0	1
	Spanish edition via Google	23	2	17
	Swedish edition via Google	202	29	158

Source		"TV show"	"TV program"	"TV programme"
The Local	Danish edition via Google	23	0	7
	French edition via Google	168	1	28
	German edition via Google	223	1	42
	Italian edition via Google	179	1	10
	Norweigan edition via Google	51	0	42
	Spanish edition via Google	70	0	5
	Swedish edition via Google	944	193	148

The Local is multi-regional, European, English-language digital news publisher with local editions in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. Each site, while alike in appearance, has separate editorial teams, each focused on its respective market.[14] In the searches, you can see both "television show" and "TV show" are not only used, but the most common amongst the other respective terms in all of these countries. El Millo (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

India results:

Source	"Television show"	"Television program"	"Television programme"
Hindustan Times via Google	260	65	230
The Times of India via Google	300	130	275

Source	"TV show"	"TV program"	"TV programme"
Hindustan Times via Google	284	50	290
The Times of India via Google	382	265	275

~~Overwhelming use of "television show" and "TV show" over the others.~~ El Millo (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem. Thanks for all your hard work, El Millo … but unfortunately, your good faith hard work has produced wildly inaccurate results. This is due a quirk of the way Google estimates the total number of hits, as documented in WP:HITS.
The solution is: don't use the headline figure given on the first page, but instead find the last page of results, and there you will find the accurate number. For example your link to https://www.google.com/search?q=%22TV+show%22+site:hindustantimes.com&pws=0 gives a count of "about 19,000" … but the actual number found at https://www.google.com/search?q=%22TV+show%22+site:hindustantimes.com&pws=0&start=280 is 285.
I did all my Google searches by following through to the end, and for your results to have any validity they need to follow the same method. It's time-consuming, but it's the only way to avoid absurdly-inflated figures.
In the meantime, I have collapsed your table to avoid misleading readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: fixed it. I hope it's okay now. El Millo (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, El Millo. That's better, but still a bit shaky, because the link I tested [15] doesn't actually point to the last page of results. It also includes session data and other such detritus which makes the URL hard to check. A better link for that is https://www.google.com/search?q=%22TV+programme%22+site:hindustantimes.com&pws=0&&start=280.

Your revised figures look plausible, but better links would help verification. Anyway, thank you for being so conscientious about this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably because I have Google set up to show me 50 results per page. El Millo (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain it, @El Millo. But not adjusting the URLs to suit the default 10-at-a-time searching means that anyone using the default setup gets the wildly-inflated figures, which may lead them to discredit your hard work. You can test this yourself by right-clicking on the link which I sampled above and opening it in a private/incognito window: [16] says "Page 26 of about 1,280 results", whereas the ten-at-a-time link [17] correctly says "Page 29 of about 286 results". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done... I hope. El Millo (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, El Millo. That's perfect: the links will now lead every viewer to pages which explicitly confirm your very helpful findings. Thanks again for your diligence and for being so nice about my pedantry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as a non-native English speaker I hate to vote in spelling issues and in WP:ENGVAR issues. However the evidence that "show" is a prime example of WP:COMMONALITY appears to be abundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: i invite you to modify or delete your comment if you want to, given that it was informed by faulty research. El Millo (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on the evidence of User:BrownHairedGirl as well, so it is too early to strike my entire comment. Just for clarification, are the numbers in tthe above table still based on faulty research or have they meanwhile been corrected? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They've been corrected. El Millo (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, yes they have been fully corrected, as noted in the collapsed section. El Millo has been scrupulously diligent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is no reason to strike or even relax any of my earlier comment. One can almost literally apply the first example in WP:COMMONALITY to this discussion: Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. For example, show is preferred to the national varieties programme (British English) and program (American English). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. El Millo (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it in a nutshell, @Marcocapelle. If this discussion is closed as "rename", then since the RM on the head article reached the same conclusion, then your wording should be added to MOS:COMMONALITY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation continues onward edit

Spat between editor and op

Sigh. I don't think I'm going to get ~~any concession~~ anything from the OP, @BrownHairedGirl, as they seem stuck in their ways. I would not say any of what I said were falsehoods. I corrected my comments about Merriam-Webster, correcting the source to Dictionary.com. In any case, I'm not even going to respond to your claims I have a "reckless disregard for the truth," all based on the fact I accidentally said the source came from Merriam-Webster instead of Dictionary.com, which I now know is owned by Random House. The comments of the OP were not always clear so, plus my incorrect perception of the source, is where the issue arose. The fact that you refuse to remove "all the non-English language programs" is the reason that I continue to oppose your proposal. If you removed those programs, then I may be more sympathetic to your proposal. The fact you do not choose to remove those programs means that your proposal is a faulty one. The flaws I see in your research are that, as I said, are that you have not provided sources proving your point that the names of ALL the categories from "programmes"/"programs" to "shows". You have provided sources for some countries, but not all of that. As for the rest of your rambling and attacks against me, I'm just going to ignore that. I appreciate the research done by @El Millo, looking at The Local with results for India (and those other languages), but there are MANY countries which have not be covered by existing research. I am very skeptical of only using one newspaper to provide most of the research, along with the two Indian media publications. It doesn't seem like enough to bolster the original argument. The more sources, the better. That will, undoubtedly, require more research, but that is OK! I would welcome that. Also, why are the OP (and their supporters) relying on Google searches to prove their point? You know about the filter bubble, right? You know that search engines will NEVER show you everything, right? I mean they are nice tools, but we should not act like they have answers to everything we would like answers to. With that all being said, the burden of proof has still not been met, which connects to my request for a change to the original proposal (see the second paragraph for more details). In terms of @Marcocapelle, I agree that the word "show" is abundant, but I would counter that "programme" and "program" is just as abundant. As I said in the past, I am willing to accept that shows be listed under programs/programmes, so it would look like this:

English-language programs

LGBT television shows

That's my thought about it anyway. This may not be the perfect example, either, but I think it could be a good model. I doubt that the OP will give up on this quest, unfortunately, despite my efforts at compromise. I would make a further request: that ALL the categories which include non-English language programs/programmes be removed, and the proposal to be narrowed to those programs only aired in English. (this would necessitate looking at all the categories and coming to a determination if any included non-English language programs/programmes). This request would actually align with the existing research of the OP (and their supporters) and bolster their case. On a final note, this discussion is becoming very tiresome and depressing with arguments going round and round. As such, I don't feel like replying to the OP anymore, who is basically calling me a liar and a scoundrel. It makes me think of what Michael Corelone said in the Godfather Part III film, "just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in." In this case, the "they" is the OP (and this discussion respectfully) and "out" means out of this discussion. I am not saying that the OP is like the Mafia or anything like that, but rather that the sentiment is the same, as I always hope that I can leave the discussion, but the comments keep pulling me back in. ~~I will end by saying that if the OP takes back their harsh words about me, I am willing to forgive them and strike ALL my harsh words about them.~~ Of course, I will still say the proposal favors the English language, unless all the categories with non-English language program/programmes are removed. I doubt this will happen, but I thought I should at least try.--Historyday01 (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: of course it favors the English language, it has to. This is the English Wikipedia. BHG's words may seem harsh, but you are continuously missing her point and ignoring the policies she cites. You have to back up your argument with policy or guidelines. And there's no need for all countries to be searched, a handful will do. This is WP:COMMONALITY we're striving for. Lastly, "Anglocentrism" means The practice of viewing the world from English or Anglo-American perspective, with an implied belief, either consciously or subconsciously, in the preeminence of English or Anglo-American culture, the part about "Anglo-American" being the one to avoid. But the English-language has preeminence in the English Wikipedia. El Millo (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El Millo, to say that "there's no need for all countries to be searched, a handful will do" doesn't even make sense. How can you say that results about countries like Australia, UK, and the US apply to those like Sweden? It doesn't make sense. As I said before, I am willing to be sympathetic to the OP's proposal and perhaps even support it if those programs which non-English language are removed. But, the OP does not seem to be willing to do that. As for Anglocentrism, I stand by calling it that as long as the foreign-language programs are included. I realize this is English Wikipedia, but the sources of a few countries should not apply to all of those listed.--Historyday01 (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01: you still haven't shown any policy or guideline that supports your position that sources from ALL of these countries need to be looked at. And a handful isn't "countries like Australia, UK, and the US", because that would be Anglocenstrim. By a handful I mean some countries, like it has already been done. US, UK, Australia, Wales, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway, Sweden, and India. That's twelve countries, four of which have English as their official language. I think it's a sizable sample. In order to standardize based on COMMONALITY there's no need to check for ALL countries. You're setting up a task too big for anyone to take on in order for it not to be done. I repeat, link to the policy where you're getting this from. El Millo (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. @El Millo, I am saying all those countries need to be researched because they were listed in the original proposal.

~~Does everything revolve around policies for people like you? You sound like a bunch of sorry bureaucrats with nothing else to do but spout rules and regulations at people.~~ If the task is too big, then take away the foreign-language programs/programmes. Its that simple. Reading through the policy you keep throwing at me, and the OP, it says that on Wikipedia "using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable." That is what you are harping on. But what about these parts?

The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of English over any other...An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation.

Isn't using the word "show" instead of "program" or "programme" preferring one form of English over another? If Wikipedia is not preferring one "national variety of English over any other" then doesn't that make your whole argument mute? It seems that way to me. I also found this part interesting:

If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English (for example, compare Australian Defence Force with United States Secretary of Defense). Otherwise, all national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer one in particular. American English spelling should not be respelled to British English spelling, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and used in article titles (such as color gel and colour state). Very occasionally, a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected to avoid having to choose between national varieties: for example, soft drink was selected to avoid the choice between the British fizzy drink, American soda, American and Canadian pop, and a slew of other nation- and region-specific names.

The last sentence here doesn't apply to the change by the OP, as by their evidence, show is "common" not "less common." This would also mean that any attempt to change "programmes" to "programs" would violate this policy. After reading this pages, I realize my previous compromise of allowing standardization was a mistake, and as such, I stake a position in opposition, without question, to the changes by the OP. ~~It is disturbing you are acting like the errand boy (or errand girl or errand person if you will) of the OP. Do you not have any opinion of your own? Or are you just a clone?~~ Historyday01 (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It is disturbing you are acting like the errand boy (or errand girl or errand person if you will) of the OP. Do you not have any opinion of your own? Or are you just a clone?" Now that's a proper personal attack, Historyday01. It seems BHG was right about your bad faith, and it's this far into the discussion you decided to actually provide some degree of evidence. Policies aren't orders from overlords. Policy is consensus. Who do you think made the policies? Wikipedia users. To be against them is to be against Wikipedia consensus. Unfortunately for you, the same things you cite show that An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. An English-speaking nation. Most of those categories above aren't from English-speaking nations, so their sources shouldn't be checked. Only those that have English as an official language should be checked, and the common term between should be applied to the rest as well. So what you were asking us to do was wrong and unnecessary. You mention a part that says "a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected to avoid having to choose between national varieties" and then say "show" doesn't apply because "show" is "common" not "less common." ~~Now you've just failed simple reading comprehension.~~ "a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected to avoid having to choose between national varieties" doesn't mean it requires the term to be less common, it means that in spite of being less common it is chosen because it is a non-nation-specific term, which is exactly what we're trying to do with "show" instead of "program"/"programme". You said "show" is American, you haven't shown evidence for your claim. We have shown evidence against your claim. We have provided further evidence that "shows" not only is not American, but it is commonly used in a lot of countries. That would make a non-nation-specific term, unlike "program" and "programme". So, choosing "show" is precisely the thing the policy you cited advises to do. El Millo (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El Millo, it was a personal attack, sure, and I have struck it, along what I believe are all the parts I believe you, and the OP, consider personal attacks. I may have missed one or two, but I think I got all of them. I know this goes back with what I said before about not removing my harsh words before the OP did, but I don't see the point in staking that claim anymore. Moving on, I see it as extreme ignorance to say "most of those categories above aren't from English-speaking nations, so their sources shouldn't be checked." Why? That doesn't even make sense If we go with the argument that "only those that have English as an official language should be checked," then it seems completely illogical that this "common term between should be applied to the rest as well." Honestly, extending that term to non-English speaking countries sounds pretty imperialistic to me. The fact you are literally insulting my intelligence doesn't help your argument. Lets say I go with the argument that show is common in English-speaking countries. If we accept that claim, then the original proposal should be narrowed to ONLY English-speaking countries. I do not understand why it includes non-English speaking countries.--Historyday01 (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact you are literally insulting my intelligence" If you insult someone, they will most likely insult you back. In light of your striking, I will strike mine as well. But enough with discussing insults and bad manners, let's keep it as simple as possible. @Historyday01: How would you decide which term to use in categories about non-English speaking countries, and why should it be different from the term used in categories from English-speaking countries? Take into account that we base the terms we use on English-speaking sources, and we can't base them on sources in other languages. Currently, I don't find a policy that deals with terms on strong national ties with non-English-speaking countries. El Millo (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Historyday made a personal attack on me for not finding something which didn't exist where they said it, because they had repeatedly misrepresented their sources. They have acknowledged the error, but have not withdrawn the unfounded attacks. That failure to withdraw a smear whose falsehood is based on Historyday's own belatedly-acknowledged error speaks volumes about their disregard for truth.

The rest of this post is yet another round of the notion that non-English language show/program(me)s should be treated differently. This is because Historyday continues to completely ignore multiple reminders that policy is to use the terminology favoured by English-language sources. So the language of the topic is irrelevant. But Historyday continues to ignore en.wp policy, as they have throughout the discussion, and posts another two long paragraphs about their own contra-policy demands. As above, I do not know why Historyday does this; but their endless verbose pursuit of a proposal which contradicts policy is just another example of the wider pattern of how Historyday's conduct is not the conduct of a competent editor acting in good faith to uphold en.wp policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl, I have not withdrawn what I said, because I would like you to withdraw your remarks first. Once you do so, I will withdraw my harsh words. I am saying that non-English language program(me)s should be judged by sources from those countries. Since you are insisting on English sources, then find those, but they should be from the countries listed. As I have said before, the burden of evidence does not support adding those foreign language shows. I stand by that position. In terms of your personal attacks, I again and going to ignore them. There is one person who is acting in bad faith, and its you, not me, with your "endless verbose pursuit of a proposal which contradicts policy" to quote your claims about me.--Historyday01 (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not identified any policy basis for your approach to categories non-English-language shows. But that is unsurprising because you have consistently ignored or breached policy throughout this discussion.

I stand by my harsh words to you, because every one of them was justified by specific examples of your disruptive conduct. So it would be dishonest for me to withdraw them.

By contrast, your attack on me was based on your own misrepresentation of sources, and you have belatedly acknowledged that misrepresentation. Your choice to let the attack stand even though you acknowledge that it was false is another clear indication of your reckless disregard for truth. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, OP. As you continue to repeat your claims about "disruptive conduct" and so on, I steadfastly refuse to withdraw my claims. I will admit that I was heated at the moment and said things I probably shouldn't have said due to the conversation reaching a fever pitch. However, I have attempted time and time again to compromise from my strong opposition to your original proposal. Your hyperbolic comments aren't helping your case. You are like a person yelling at a film screened at a movie theater or an old person yelling at people to get off their lawn. That's what it reminds me of at least.Historyday01 (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01, I do not compromise in discussions just to placate another editor. I respond to evidence and reasoned arguments, and I don't treat evidence as a tool to be manipulated for partisan gain (note for example, how I challenged El Millo to correct their search data, even tho the erroneous results were more favourable to my proposal). If the balance of evidence changes, I may be persuaded by that to alter or even invert my stance ... but I don't bargain. This is an encyclopedia, not a street bazaar. Policy and evidence are the tools of a search for enyclopedic quality; they are not commodities to be exchanged to placate an editor who just makes stuff up or cherryicks.

Your sustained disregard for policy and your decision to treat truth as a commodity to be traded for advantage speak for themselves. Your statement that I steadfastly refuse to withdraw my claims, even though you have acknowledged that their basis was false is not the conduct of someone acting in good faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh yet again. I'm not saying you, @BrownHairedGirl need to placate anyone. I refuse to withdraw my claims about you only because you refuse to withdraw yours, its that simple. ~~If you didn't have the demeanor of a person shouting at their computer screen, then I would change my tune.~~ Why should I even withdraw my claims if you keep declaring that I'm violating policy and calling me a liar in literally every single comment? It doesn't make sense, logically. I also am fearful that even if I withdraw what I said about you, it won't change anything, as you will still be obstinate. At that point, is it even worth it? Personally, I feel I have no choice but to hunker down and be defensive. That's just how I feel about the situation at this point and time.

Clearly, there is nothing that will change your mind about me, no matter what I say, whether about evidence, or whatnot. I am glad you believe that "if the balance of evidence changes, I may be persuaded by that to alter or even invert my stance." However, I could send you all the evidence I want, but it wouldn't matter because at this point, I doubt you will change your mind, based on the discussion at this point. I did admit that I incorrectly identified a source, and that is it. Every one of us makes mistakes. I saw your challenges to my sources as attacks and I responded in a way I thought was appropriate at the time. End of story. At this point, I think we are both acting in bad faith, as this argument is going nowhere and is likely doing a disservice to Wikipedia as a whole. At this point, I would wish that you withdraw your whole proposal and start over, trying for something more realistic, either only focusing on English-language program/programmes, or directing your energy elsewhere. I would say your conduct speaks for itself as well. We are clearly at an impasse, and "cherryicks" or "encylopedic quality" isn't going to solve anything.Historyday01 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01, the only evidence which you have presented has been misrepresented, cherrypicked or faked, and you have repeatedly disregarded policy or directly contravened policy. I have presented detailed evidence, and plentiful policy. You choice to label that as the demeanor of a person shouting at their computer screen illustrates yet again your failure to conduct reasoned discourse.

You continued insistence on holding truth as a hostage is clear evidence of your bad faith. Your description of me as obstinate shows a fundmental misunderstanding of what this discussion is for; you seem to think that it is some sort of personal bargaining session between two editors, which is absolutely not how WP:Consensus-building works. Your choice to describe an evidence-based stance as obstinate is not just offensively arrogant; it a rejection of rational debate, as if your decision to hunker down and be defensive. This discussion is supposed to be about policy and evidence, not about your feelings.

This feels like the five millionth time that you have reiterated your demand that the nominations should be withdrawn or modified. My answer remains "no" for the reasons I have stated repeatedly, and your repeated requests add precisely nothing to the discussion except yet more screenfuls of evidence-free and content-free verbiage.

There is no impasse. The closer will weigh the arguments against evidence and policy, and make a decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OP, @BrownHairedGirl, I admit that I have not presented much evidence, but none of it has been misrepresented, cherrypicked or faked. I accidentally identified one source, and in the heat of the argument made a mistake in that identification. That was my mistake and I admit it. I would not say you have "presented detailed evidence, and plentiful policy." As I said before, I do not believe it supports your changes at this current place and time. Additionally, I am not holding "truth" hostage. I don't know if you have read a book called How to Lie with Statistics, but there is no singular "universal truth." Life is what we make of it and how we interpret it. In terms of the bargaining, I thought it would be a good way to encourage good faith on your part, but clear that was a mistake, sadly. You are right that I have reiterated my demand that "the nominations should be withdrawn or modified" and I stand by those statements. I have struck many of my past statements and will continue to do so, although I doubt it will bring good faith on your part. Yes, this goes against what I said earlier, but I don't care enough to get into an argument over something like that. In terms of the closer, good luck at justifying the inclusion of those foreign-language programs. Because I don't think their inclusion in your proposal is justified because there is no evidence to support your claims for those countries. Most of the searches supporting your claims have been on Google, apart from the original searches on JSTOR, Google Scholar, etc... which makes me wary, as not everything in the world can be found on Google. There is a lot of information they suppress through their alogrithms or other methods.Historyday01 (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is approaching a CFD record for length, sub-sections and doggedness. What fun. BHG just doesn't like people disagreeing with her and will go to any and all lengths to punish such aberrant behaviour. Don't you get that by now? Fiat BHG, ruat Wiki. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, @Laurel Lodged, its bad. I'm glad you also oppose this move. My emotions probably got the better of me at times, but at the same time, they still call me a liar and a scoundrel, basically. Thanks for weighing in.--Historyday01 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much heat, little light. The solution is obvious: keep program(me)s and have re-directs to shows. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: But the main question is which term to use, in order to use one term and standardize. What is your opinion on using one term for all of them? El Millo (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My EngVar bias would plump for 'programme' but I could live with 'program' as it travels better internationally. Whichever is the eventual winner, let the other also become a re-direct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Lodged has chosen to make a !vote explicitly based on personalities rather than on policy or evidence. LL ignores WP:ENGVAR and MOS:COMMONALITY, and ignores the evidence that "show" is a acceptable alternative in all major varians of English. The closer will be obliged to disregard that !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

@Laurel Lodged, I would be willing to settle with a change to program, actually, come to think of it. But, as I note in my comment below (the new section I added), "series," "programme"/"program" and "show" don't necessarily mean the same thing. And @BrownHairedGirl, I would not say that they are "voting," only expressing their opinion. The closer should not disregard their comment in any way, shape, or form.Historyday01 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, Historyday01 flatly contradicts policy, in this case the core policy of WP:Consensus.

WP:Consensus#Determining-consensus is very clear:

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy

.

Laurel Lodged disregards policy, and makes a personality-based oppose to a proposal founded in policy and copious evidence. The closer is obliged to disregard that !vote as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl, I am not contradicting any policy. What Laurel Lodged said is a valid point, and it should be respected.Historyday01 (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01, yet again, you have responded by simply ignoring the substance of my reply, and responding with an assertion which does not address the policy. Please stop your disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is that their opinion is valid, @BrownHairedGirl, that is it. Nothing else, nothing more.Historyday01 (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Consensus#Determining-consensus. An "opinion" which is not founded in policy is not valid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They were only offering their honest opinion at the time, saying "this is approaching a CFD record for length, sub-sections and doggedness." That is how I saw it. By your logic, all of my opinions are not valid since they are reportedly "not founded in policy."Historyday01 (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"CFD too long" is not a policy-based reason for supporting or opposing a proposal. And yes, your opinions consistently ignore policy, even when multiple editors point you to the relevant policies. The closer is obliged to discount those too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, even if we discount Laurel's comments, I do not think it would be fair to discount my comments as I have been the main person opposed to your proposal from the start.Historyday01 (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that shows a complete disregard for WP:CONSENSUS. The volume of your postings does give you any bypass to the requirement that argumnets be founded in policy, which yours are not. And sheer volume of posting doesn't override evidence of the pattern of usage in relaible sources. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Tables showing different definitions for "series", "show", and "program"/"programme" edit

Lets start with the word series (which has been proposed in the past) by some users:

Macmillian Dictionary	Dictionary.com	Merriam-Webster	[18]	Cambridge Dictionary	Collins Dictionary
2nd definition: "a set of television or radio programmes that are all about a particular subject, person, or group of people"	5th definition: "a daily or weekly program with the same cast and format and a continuing story, as a soap opera, situation comedy, or drama" and "a number of related programs having the same theme, cast, or format"	1b definition: "a set of regularly presented television programs each of which is complete in itself"	2nd definition: "a set or sequence of related television or radio programmes"	b1 definition: "a set of television or radio broadcasts on the same subject or using the same characters but in different situations"	2nd definition: "a radio or television series is a set of programmes of a particular kind which have the same title"

Then the word "show":

Macmillian Dictionary	Dictionary.com	Merriam-Webster	Lexico	Cambridge Dictionary	Collins Dictionary
2a definition: "to give information that you can see in a film or on television" [1]	20th definition: "a radio or television program"	6b definition: "a regularly distributed program (as on radio, television, or the Internet)[.] also: a single episode of such a program"	1.3 definition: "Present (a film or television programme) on a screen for viewing"	C definition: "a performance in a theater, a movie, or a television or radio program"	13th definition: "a television or radio show is a programme on television or radio"

Now, compare that to "program"/"programme":

Macmillian Dictionary	Dictionary.com	Merriam-Webster	Lexico	Cambridge Dictionary	Collins Dictionary
2nd definition: "a television or radio broadcast" [2]	3rd definition: "a broadcasted television or radio production or similar Internet-based content produced for distribution."	2b definition: "a performance broadcast on radio or television"	3rd definition: "a presentation or item on television or radio, especially one broadcast regularly between stated times."	a2 definition: "a broadcast on television or radio"	2nd definition: "a television or radio programme is something that is broadcast on television or radio"

I'm not seeing a lot of overlap here, to be honest. As such, it would be wrong to say that "program"(s)/"programme"(s) are the same as "show"(s). I would not call the above display cherrypicking because these are direct definitions from their respective websites. I do think this disproves the claim by the OP that these words are the same. They can do as many Google searches as they want, but it won't prove their points.

Notes

[1] Other definitions include, #8: "if someone shows a film or a television programme, or if it is showing, people can see it." No reference to show as Dictionary.com defines it, from what I can tell.

[2] On the page for "program" the second definition is the American spelling of programme.

Historyday01 (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It proves nothing of the sort.

The only actually relevant part of this is the definition of "show", because the only term on the tale which can possibly satisfy MOS:COMMONALITY is "show". "Program(me)" cannot be a common term because that would breach WP:ENGVAR; and "series" cannot be the common term because many shows/program(me)s are not series.

The Macmillian Dictionary cited is a verb, not a noun, so it is irrelevant a discussion of the noun. The other 5 definitions all define a "show" as equivalent to a "program(me)". The only one which suggests any distinction is MW, which adds the qualifier "a regularly distributed program". That is an outlier; the other 4 of the 5 directly equate show with program. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you dismissed this evidence, basically, says something. I guess you don't like those other sources. I'm no magician, I can't conjure up sources.--Historyday01 (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, @BrownHairedGirl, I glad you see that series cannot be a common term, and I agree with you on that point, but I disagree when it comes to programs/programmes as I have noted before.Historyday01 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01, please stop inventing straw men. I made it very clear which bits of your evidence are relevant, and why.

I did not in any way suggest or imply that you should conjure up sources. I commented on the sources which you did supply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, whatever. I'm not inventing anything.Historyday01 (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You invented the notion that I had asked you to conjure up sources. I did not make any such request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounded to me like that's what you were saying.Historyday01 (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who actually read what I actually wrote can see there is no way in which my comment carries any such meaning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said, @BrownHairedGirl. It seems no source is good enough for you, other than mainly Google searches, based on the evidence you have presented to support your case.--Historyday01 (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are fine, though most of them are irrelevant. The five which are relevant do not support your case, because 4 out of the 5 directly and unequivocally equate "television show" with television programme". That supports the nomination.

I am unsurprised that you stand by your comments. Standing by counter-factual claims has been a regular feature of your contributions to this XFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are supporting "program": can you provide evidence that this is accepted in the UK (apart from computer programs)? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Program (TV) is wrong in the UK and programme is wrong in the US. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/programme. Oculi (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all the reasons stated at the last renaming proposal. This discussion is TLDR (Even I have my limits!) but I agree with most comments made by opposers here. I have more to say on this but I'm having problems finding time to compile the data. I'll have to add that later. (I assume this discussion won't be closing any time soon.) --AussieLegend (✉) 06:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @AussieLegend here. And yes, the discussion is TLDR at this point. I am hesitating to provide any further data because it will be shotdown by the OP, although I may try again later.--Historyday01 (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: the extensive data already posted clearly demonstrates that "shows" is commonly used across the globe, and that neither variant of "program(me)" is globally acceptable. This applies to both news media and to scholarly sources, so the argument that "show" is informal is proven false. That all makes a textbook case for applying MOS:COMMONALITY: avoid the WP:ENGVAR terms, and use the commonly acceptable term.

The only argument made so far by opposers which could debar use of "television show" is the claim that "television show" has a narrower scope than "television program(me)". However, the dictionary definitions presented above by Historyday01 show that 4 out of the 5 dictionaries cited define "television show" as directly equivalent to "television program(me)". So it's hard to see how there is mileage remaining in that argument. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree on the dictionary definitions, OP. I would say it shows the opposite, as it shows a difference between the terms. I tried to find the definitions which fit the topic. The OP can argue they were verbs and not nouns, but the fact is the definitions I listed were the only relevant ones, I felt, which mentioned television. That is why I included them. Its as simple as that.Historyday01 (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The verbs are irrelevant, because the categories use the noun form. Of the noun forms, 4 of the 5 definitions of "television show" unequivocally define "television show" as directly equivalent to "television program(me)". So Historyday01's claim that this shows a difference between the terms is simply false; it inverts the evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just wow. This wall-of-text WP:BLUDGEONING, is actually why I said a discussion should have happened BEFORE going to CFD to force a point of view. Even commenting on something here is practically impossible. For the record, I find Historyday01's data convincing. Also, to comment on the comments on those wishing to "just pick a word", my option would be "program" as its just the most used around the world and while maybe not used in the UK, its meaning is still understood by those editors. --Gonnym (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gonnym: I agree that Historyday01's wall-of-text WP:BLUDGEONING is disruptive. Masses of evidence-free long paragraphs which ignore policy, and added nothing to the discussion.
  However, Historyday01 did make one useful contribution: their data above showing that 4 out 5 major dictionaries define "television show" as a synonym of "television program(me)". That had the unintended effect of demolishing the claim that "TV show" has a narrower scope.
  I understand your personal preference for "program", but it defies both WP:ENGVAR and MOS:COMMONALITY, so there is no policy basis for that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your twisting of my comment about Historyday01 is way out of line and not even funny in a serious discussion. The BLUDGEONING and wall-of-text was about you and your actions here. I have to say, when I saw the portal editors discussion about you I thought that they might have exaggerated, but it seems that when you are on a crusade, you literally do not even try to be open to a discussion, be civil or even trying to be minimally pleasant to talk to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 09:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gonym, there was nothing at all uncivil about my reply to you. I genuinely thought that you were commenting on Historyday01's massive BLUDGEONING on the basis of zero evidence and repeated defiance of policy ... until Historyday01 eventually posted evidence which actually supports the proposed renaming which Historyday01 opposes.
      The only crusade here is the crusade by those editors like you and Historyday01 who ignore both policy and evidence, and then get angry when your WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance is challenged.
      In the March 31 CFD you also offered zero evidence or policy basis for your view, and it is sad to see that being repeated here. I note that both your posts in the last 24 hours do not even try to weigh evidence against policy, and I sincerely hope that Wikipedia does not descend to the level of giving weight to that sort of stance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - PS @Gonnym: regarding your comment above (01:04, 19 May 2020) that a discussion should have happened BEFORE going to CFD to force a point of view. That echoes your similar comment at 13:16, 6 May 2020.

Category names are routinely discussed at CFD. It's what CFD is for. I am not aware of any guideline which suggests an RFC prior to CFD.
A discussion at CFD is not forcing a point of view. It's a consensus-building discussion.
I note that you made the nomination at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 22#American_television_series_by_network, a discussion which I became are of only via Mvcg66b3r's post below. I see that you made that nomination, and that there is no mention there of any prior RFC or other prior discussion. So your repeated complaint that this CFD should have been preceded by an RFC seems to be a demand that you repeatedly make of other editors, but don't apply to yourself. There is a word for that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standardize to "(channel/network) original programming" per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_22#American_television_series_by_network. Leave other categories as is. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of categories to be renamed to "original programming"

Oppose Like I've said many many times before on various websites, just because Americans think they are the world, doesn't make it true.

Contrary to what most Americans believe, British English, is taught, spoken and used in more countries of the world than American English.

Australians and New Zealanders mainly use British English.

African countries mainly use British English.

European countries mainly use British English.

Asian countries mainly use British English.

Even Canada mainly uses British English.

The only countries where British English isnt the dominant form of English are in the UAE and the other small countries that surround it, South American countries above Brazil and Peru, Japan and most of the other small islands of the Pacific.

The same goes for things like films, TV programmes, books, games, foods, sports, brands etc where they have their original names or titles in every country of the world, except the USA, as the USA seems to have an obsession with renaming things for no reason. Danstarr69 (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Danstarr69: would you like to present evidence for your claim that "show" is an American term? Mountains of evidence that contradict your statement have already been presented El Millo. (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long series of editors stridently denouncing the term "television shows" in various ways, but with no evidence to support their case. And as El Millo has noted, plenty of evidence has been posted of how "television shows" is widely used in all major variants of English. Maybe Danstarr69 will be the exception who has some evidence that amounts to more than cherrypicked examples.

And for the record, I am the proposer of this renaming, and I am not American. Danstarr69's assumption that this proposal is driven by some sort of Ameriocentric view is simply false; it's driven by en.wp policy and by the data. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long series of editors stridently denouncing the term "television shows" in various ways, - That alone should tell you something. It's a term the TV project tries not to use and it's one of those things that we all just know. For example, there was this discussion at MOS:TV. Please show something on Wikipedia that supports "show" rather than just trying to bludgeon your preferred term into categorisation so the categories don't match the articles in them.

it's driven by en.wp policy - What policy says to use "show"? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend, it does indeed tell me something. It tells me that there is cluster of en.wp editors who work on TV articles and who are deeply hostile to both policy and evidence, and who choose instead to get annoyed that their personal preferences aren't followed. That's sad, but that's how it is, and the link you supply to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 9#"show" illustrates the problem very clearly: so far as I can see, that discussion consists solely of unevidenced assertions. Even worse, you happily link to that thoroughly flaky discussion as if it was some sort of example of good practice ... whereas in reality, it's an extreme example of groupthink, in which a small clique editors make no effort to test your shared assumptions against usage in WP:Reliable sources or to seek wider input.

For the millionth time, the policy is WP:AT, and the guideline is MOS:COMMONALITY which says:

For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable.
Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles.

Mountains of data has been produced as evidence that "television show" is the universally accepted term.

All of that has been set out in the nomination, which was posted two whole weeks ago. Further evidence has been added since, but the case in the nomination is clear: the link to MOS:COMMONALITY is the sixth word in the nomination, and before this post there are 32 further mentions of it. So I find it extraordinary that you could have missed that.

It's now two weeks later, but you are still asking what the policy basis is. What's going on here? Why are you doing this?

The only "bludgeoning here" is the sustained hostility of the few editors who display what seems to be some sort of deep aversion to the basic process of applying policies and to the extensive data on the balance of uses in WP:Reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction you are seeing is from editors who edit TV articles day in and day out and have been for years and know how TV works. Show is not a catch-all as you argue, it's a specific type of program but you don't seem to (want to) understand that. Your edit here demonstrates that (as well as a bit of wikistalking). Given that Mom (TV series) is indeed a series, use of series in the article is more than appropriate and a far better option in most cases than "show" or "series". --AussieLegend (✉) 17:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend, you claim that these objectors are editors who edit TV articles day in and day out and have been for years.

I will take you at your word on that much ... but not on the rest of your sentence, in which you claim that they know how TV works.

The fact that these prolific editors show such deep antagonism to policy and to evidence fills me with despair for the quality of their work. Between them all, they have been unable to produce a single piece of non-cherry picked evidence in support of their case.

These low standards of both reasoning and manners are evident again in your statement Show is not a catch-all as you argue, it's a specific type of program but you don't seem to (want to) understand that. I have stated before that I am open to evidence that "television show" has a narrower meaning, but so far no such evidence has been produced. All we get is unevidenced assertions, like your latest one ... and the only exception was Historyday01's evidence of dictionary definitions, which actually disproves your case by showing that 4 out of major dictionaries define "television show" as an unqualified synonym of "television program(me)".

So I find it amusing in a sad way that you try a character attack by claiming that I don't seem to (want to) understand. Quite the contrary; I am understand very clearly, and I am very keen to consider actual evidence from WP:Reliable sources. But I also understand very clearly that the petulantly unevidenced assertions of an anonymous en.wp editor are not a reliable source, so per WP:V I attach precisely zero weight to them. I will not be persuaded in the slightest by however much you or Historyday01 assert variants of "I am right because I say I am right!".

Don't tell me; show me the evidence. It would help considerably if you would devote some time to trying to understand WP:V and WR:RS. The use of sources which should underpin this discussion should also underpin any edits which you do to articles ... such as the one I reverted today[19] because it was based on an unevidenced assertion.

Finally, your previous post asked what the policy basis, so I explained. Your reply doesn't even acknowledge that explanation. So can we take it that you accept that MOS:COMMONALITY supports the use of "television show", and have now narrowed your opposition to your unevidenced claim that "show" has a narrower scope than "program(me)"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El Millo I didn't claim anything of the sort. This is clearly just an another attempt by Americans to remove a dominant English word from Wikipedia. That word is programme. If Wikipedia like Quora, IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes etc wasn't run and dominated by Americans, then the dominant and/or original British English words, names, titles etc would be used for most articles, topics, pages etc, rather than using Americanisms like Program, Season, License, Theater, Movie Theater, Soccer etc.

This has just reminded me of a 2019 British TV programme which has been added to IMDB 3 times, once under it's actual name, and twice under it's American title. Only the American entries have been filled in, so when I've finished editing the stuff I'm currently editing, with my 50+ tabs currently open, I'll be merging those 2 American entries, into the original British entry, along with adding the original British broadcast dates, production companies, channels etc.Danstarr69 (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Danstarr69, I made this nomination. As stated above, I am not an American. I am Irish.

So your claim that this is clearly just an another attempt by Americans is false. Please strike it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm from Argentina so, double false. El Millo (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El Millo You're from Argentina one of the few countries of the world that uses American English as I pointed out above, and User:BrownHairedGirl you're from Ireland one of the few countries of the world which uses the word Soccer, although like the UK and most countries of the world use the word programme the most, for television programmes, radio programmes, sports programmes etc and other non-computer related things, as shown by Ireland's biggest TV network RTE among others.

https://www.rte.ie/tv/programmes/

https://tg4.ie/en/

https://www.virginmedia.ie/television/learn-about-television/replaytv/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes

https://help.itv.com/hc/en-us/categories/115000085174-Programmes

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/gogglebox

https://www.channel5.com/programme-production/

https://www.sky.com/help/articles/using-the-sky-tv-guide

https://uktvplay.uktv.co.uk/ways-to-watch/tv

http://www.s4c.cymru/en/

https://www.bt.com/help/tv/how-do-i-use-the-tv-guide-and-record-programmes-

https://www.britbox.com/programmes

https://www.britbox.co.uk/programme/Blackadder_36827

Danstarr69 (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no evidence for the claim that Argentina uses American English, especially when English isn't an official, national nor regional language here. El Millo (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Danstarr69, your cherry picked examples prove only one thing: that that the term "programme" has non-zero usage on in those countries ... which is not in dispute. But your cherry picked examples do not show a pattern of usage, or a preference for one term over another.

It seems that you simply have not read the nomination. The whole point of the nomination is to apply MOS:COMMONALITY by using a term which is widely used globally, thus avoiding the the WP:ENGVAR variation of program/programme.

You assert that Ireland is one of the countries which use the word programme the most. However, the data demonstrates that your claim is false:

Source	"Television show"	"Television program"	"Television programme"
RTÉ via Google	261	7	251
Irish Times via Google	299	27	289
Irish Independent via Google	286	22	289

As you can see from that table, reliable sources in Ireland rarely use the American "television program" ... but they use "television show" very slightly more than "television programme".

This is the pattern demonstrated by all the data which I and El Millo have presented: that some countries have a clear preference between "television program" and "television programme", but that "television show" is widely used in all cases. So per MOS:COMMONALITY, we should use the common term: "television show". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a perfect little vignette of what's wrong with Wiki Years from now, when doctoral students come to pick over the bones of Wiki, they will look back and say that this was the day that Wiki ate itself. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, @Laurel Lodged. The history will show this discussion as consisting of a proposal firmly rooted in policy and data ... and countered vast screeds of verbiage based on nothing more than cherrypicked anecdotes. And it will show how the attempt at a reasoned assessment was attacked by editors like LL who disregard policy and data, but pop up to assert personal preferences and make a !vote based on personal grudges. If an encyclopedia allows its decision-making processes to be undermined by those who resent and disparage reasoned assessment of policy and evidence, then yes, it will die. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sex horror films edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. General agreement seems to be to merge, although if the articles need to be recategorized that may be done. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sex horror films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Sex horror films" is not a name I have ever seen used for anything. Maybe the crator meant "pornographic horror films", but this category currently contains articles which are not pornos; and Category:Pornographic horror films already exists. ★Trekker (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The category's main article is erotic horror. Perhaps a better title would be erotic horror films. Dimadick (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both Category:Erotic horror and Category:Erotic horror films already exist.★Trekker (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 07:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Erotic horror films. Redundant category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the first article is already in Category:Erotic horror films while the other two articles are about rape and violence, hardly about erotica. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Frankish kings of Burgundy edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Frankish kings of Burgundy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, king of Burgundy was a mere secondary title of the Frankish kings and emperors from the conquest of Burgundy by the Franks in 534 until the definitive fragmentation of the Carolingian Empire in 888. The previous discussion in 2015 resulted in no consensus. This nomination is very similar to this one regarding its sibling category which was discussed recently and resulted in deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Secondary titles are defining in my view. But in this case, the Frankish kingdom under the Merovingians typically fragmented to sub-kingdoms. Burgundy had its own kings between 534 and 613. Then it was annexed by Neustria, but maintained its own distinct administration until 751. Dimadick (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Burgundy was divided between different Frankish kingdoms in 534, please check the list of kings. And what does a distinct administration mean in this era? Surely not an own parliament and an own prime minister. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support hat notes directing to the Frankish kings is a better way to treat subsidiary titles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And how would you locate the ones who actually ruled Burgundy, among a group of people who did not? Dimadick (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The hatnote can be placed at Category:Kings of Burgundy which is for actual rulers of Burgundy. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 07:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Secondary titles are non-defining in my view. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Transformers: Chojin Masterforce character redirects to lists edit

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Category:Transformers: Chojin Masterforce character redirects to lists

Category:Adelaide Football Club Hall of Fame inductees edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting Category:Adelaide Football Club Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:OVERLAPCAT

We don't have an article on the Adelaide Football Club Hall of Fame, the Adelaide Football Club makes no mention of it, and none of the 7 articles in the category even mention it either so it's clearly not defining. (In contrast, the Australian Football Hall of Fame is clearly defining to careers.) If anyone wants to create a main article, I listed the current category contents here so no work is lost. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background We deleted similar team/club specific halls of fame here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a NN AWARD. Possibly listify first, but probably better not to. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Bladesmith Society Hall of Fame inductees edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:American Bladesmith Society Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)

The American Bladesmith Society works to bring back the craft of artisanal knife making and created this award in 1995. William F. Moran founded this organization and is undoubtedly defined by it but there are only two other people in this category (who died in 1872 and 1963) and only mention the award in passing and do not seeem defined by it. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I note we have a list already, but would have questioned if one was needed if it did not. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.