Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used.Britannica uses "television program", for instance. It's not like "television program" is obscure and would not be understood because it's an archaic way to talk about things. Also, as for my "defence": I think if both I and AussieLegend, who are frequent contributors to the television articles, bring up how you didn't follow project convention, and you combine that with how few people voiced opinions on the move, it's not just a case of "Wah! I didn't bother to pay attention and now I'll blame someone else!" There are actually times when people don't follow proper notification procedures as opposed to everyone else being checked-out/clueless; this would be one of them. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Britannica uses "television program"- no link given. No year/edition/page given. Just an assertion with no proof. I can assume therefore you went to britannica.com, typed in "television program" and landed on https://www.britannica.com/art/television-program, and without reading that the message on that page "THIS IS A DIRECTORY PAGE. Britannica does not currently have an article on this topic" you thought "HA-HA... Got him!" and posted here. Well, in fact there is a page on britannica.com which actually DOES exist titled List of television shows. Also, using the search function yields items for "TV show" (360), "television show" (795), "TV program" (419), "TV programme" (40), "television program" (840), and "television programme" (211). So I don't see a compelling argument at Britannica for eliminating "show". "TV/television show" and "TV/television program(me)" have different connotations and are both totally valid when used appropriately. -- Netoholic @ 03:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
being disingenuous, and you should both WP:AGF and (as I suggested above)
re-read the first sentence of WP:SMALLCATbefore you start casting aspersions.
Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members. So the test is whether this cat has a reasonable prospect of expansion.
a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)