Copy of comments at WP:CFDS
|
---|
|
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 19#Category:Bill Haslam
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Category:Spanish-language YouTubers
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 28 May 2020. The result of the move review was endorsed (default). |
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. bibliomaniac15 00:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
|
using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable
common to all varieties of English.
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.
attempt to Americanize Wikipediais wholly unevidenced.
not all television programs are 'shows'. So your oppose is 100% WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
fails to take into consideration that not all television programs are "shows". I took that as a request for evidence, and provided it.
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)
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 ignoredthe request is demonstrably false.
national tieswith 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.
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".
more proper language and wording
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.
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)
WP:TV regularshave shown no regard here for evidence or policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
throwing insults. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
in Australia and the US, and for computer programs everywhere; otherwise programme in the UK: “I saw a fascinating TV programme about computer programs”
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 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
conveniently skipped overis unfounded ABF. It is also irrelevant, because that section is about typography (italics and capitalisation), not about terminology.
inherently flawedabout 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.
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)
it is a long-standing industry term...".
Television industry glossary / terminology
|
---|
– Television Production Handbook, Glossary, pg. 99
– Glossary, BFI Screenonline
– Broadcasting Terminology, TranslationDirectory.com
– Discover What Americans Are Watching, Playing, Listening To, and More., Nielsen Company (US)
– 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)
aligns with the main space article at television show." About the article:
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)
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).
In response to some some comments about the usage data presented in the nomination, I have:
Tables below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
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:
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)
Four claims have been advanced by opponents of using "show" which might, if proven, have made a good case for avoiding "show":
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)
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)
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.
When referring to Welsh-language television programmes, it seems only reasonable that the normal phraseology used in Wales should be usedis:
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 |
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".
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:
false dropsand 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.
the sources are English language-basedis simply you rejecting en.wp policy. WP:COMMONAME is explicitly based on English-language reliable sources.
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.
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.
Wikipedia should be using the accurate term not the supposedly "most common, generic, and lump term". That is:
the accurate termis unsupported by any evidence other than random cherry picking. It is simply your personal assertion, based on a logical fallacy.
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:
disproven by the research by @Pyxis Solitaryis both risible and irrelevant:
independent, reliable English-language sources. You continued failure to read the relevant policy looks like WP:IDHT.
Oppose. El Millo (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
professionalismin 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)
sources within the industry are by definition not independent. WP:SOURCES is also very clear that scholarly sources are to be preferred."
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.
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.
Dictionary.com’s main, proprietary source is the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.
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.
The fact you couldn't even find the above listings from dictionary.com shows a lack in your research skills.
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)
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)
realizes there are regional differencesis just more nonsense.
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.)
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.
I do think your research methods are not as rigorous as they could beis 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)
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 |
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)
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 |
Spat between editor and op
|
---|
|
.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
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)
shows a difference between the termsis simply false; it inverts the evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
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.
forcing a point of view. It's a consensus-building discussion.
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)
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.
editors who edit TV articles day in and day out and have been for years.
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. 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)".
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!".
this is clearly just an another attempt by Americansis false. Please strike it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
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 |
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Category:Transformers: Chojin Masterforce character redirects to lists