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 (actually, rename over redirect) Category:Television programs to Category:Television shows; no consensus to merge Category:Television series. This outcome has to be conditional on someone making a follow-up mass nomination to rename the "programs" hierarchies to "shows"; in the event of the sub-cats not being renamed there, the renaming here should be reversed. – FayenaticLondon 10:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - will also get around the US/UK language problem of TV program(me)s. Grutness...wha? 02:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose series, since this is a specific type of programs, it is part of Category:Television programs by type. Also I wonder while reading Television show whether "show" is equivalent to "program" or equivalent to "series", i.e. isn't "show" a too ambiguous term?Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, per my comments below, "show" is a globally-acceptable term which encompasses both "program(me)" and "series". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I notice there is no opposition against merging "programs" to "shows" at all so I'll strike my hesitation about the use of show. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There hadn't been any opposition because somebody apparently forgot to notify the project that uses most of these categories. There is opposition now though. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose series per Marcocapelle; it is indeed a type of show, with more than one episode. I would agree with the article Television show; "A television show might also be called a television program", and so I would support the merge Category:Television programs to Category:Television shows. The tree is a dog's breakfast and needs a lot of attention (or regarding askance at arm's length). Oculi (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support "programs", Oppose series per nom & above. There is an Engvar gain on "programs" also. The 26 sub-cats mostly use "programs" too & should be changed.Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Johnbod -- This also deals with the ENGVAR issue that the American spelling progam is limited in British English to its computer context. TV has programmes. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to "shows", not "series" per Grutness, Oculi, Johnbod, et al. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 18:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer "shows" I don't see one-offs and things like sports or news being "series" and prgoram(me)s has the ENGVAR issue. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support for merge "series" and "program(me)s" to "shows". Congrats to @Erpert for proposing this very long-overdue rationalisation of an absurd situation, where the category system inconsistently uses multiple terms for the same thing: content produced for broadcast on television. (Yes, I know that "very strong support" is still just "support", but I really think this is important to do).
Having recently done a lot of work on TV series categories (creating a comprehensive set of category header templates for the chronology categories at Category:Television chronology category header templates), I have concluded that whatever the theoretical distinction may be constructed, in practice the terms "program(me)", "show" and "series" are used interchangeably. The distinction noted by Oculi is not sustained in the head articles or in other parts of the category tree. There is zero benefit to readers in angels-on-heads-of-pin arguments about whether a soap opera, a news slot and a current affairs slot are individually better described as "show", "program(me)" or "series"; there is no hard boundary between the terms, and each of the three terms term can reasonably be applied to any of the thee types.
As noted by @Grutness, this also avoids the US/UK variation in the spelling of "program"/"programme".
As a Commonwealth English speaker, I use the term "show" frequently, as do other people I know. It seems the logical solution and is a term used throughout the English-speaking world. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Grutness. It's not like petrol/gasoline, where the English-speaking world takes one use or the other. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - If I remember correctly we had a discussion about show vs program and the only sticking point was whether we should use program or programme. "Show" is best suited to broadway shows but TV programs use program or series. This is supported by WP:NCTV which uses "(TV series)" as the primary disambiguator for most TV programs. Categories should reflect this convention. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As AussieLegend points out, WP:NCTV does not support the usage of "TV show", and in fact, other than that one article cited above, it would seem there isn't really any other usage of it on en.wiki. See Lists of television programs and the links from it. The current style is correct. Yes, there is a "UK/US" issue here, but people need to grow up and leave nationality ties outside of the category space. --Gonnym (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, everyone seems to be heading towards US zpelling these dayz anywayz. I've seen program and programme both used in UK and AU program listings so that shouldn't be a problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym and AussieLegend: the problem is that in category space, we have 4 terms, all with very similar meanings: program/programme/series/show. For categorisation purposes, there is no difference between them. Instead of telling people to grow up, we should follow MOS:COMMONALITY and the consistent, globally-acceptable term: show. And whatever local consensus was formed at WP:NCTV, it does not get to override the MOS. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, I completely oppose this proposal. Unlike BHG red herring statement, there is no competing terms. We have "Series" which is for a specific sub-type of TV programs, and we have "program/programme" which is the exact same as organization/organisation. "TV show" is almost non-existent, and seems to be a crusade of a very small group of editors that try to push they agenda here.. Also, I love how people throw "local consensus" around. A naming convention guideline which has been stable on that topic for years (at least 8 years since I'm here) and is used on ~50k TV series articles (((Infobox television)) is used alone on 49k) is not even close to being a local consensus but the actual guideline on how TV articles are done here. Wish to change it? Go ahead and start an RfC, don't backdoor name change the top level category without even notifying any editors that actually work in this topic. --Gonnym (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym is correct in all that he said with one minor exception. The "competing" terms in category space have been caused, at least in part, by CfDs that changed things, like this one is attempting to do, often without involving the people who write and maintain these articles. Sadly, inconsistencies do exist but we should be trying to reduce them, not add more. "Show" is too informal a term for an encyclopaedia and the TV project has been slowly moving away from it (too slowly for my liking). As for following the MOS, MOS:TV talks about a "Series" overview table, not a "show" overview and "Series overview" is the heading used in episode lists. The same MOS talks about using "(TV series) or (TV program)/(TV programme)" as the disambiguator for article titles. "(TV show)" is not used. MOS:TVLEAD refers to "television series", not "television show". The earlier use of "show" has caused problems. For example, ((infobox television)) uses |show_name= with |name= as an alias, which should be fixed. This proposal, if passed, would only contribute to continued confusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: your statement that We have "Series" which is for a specific sub-type of TV programs is true, but misleading. So far as I can see, the overwhelming majority of articles on television shows are about "series" ... so in terms of categorisation, the distinction between "shows/program(me)s" and "series" is a distinction without a difference which only impedes categorisation. As to User:AussieLegend's claim that that "show" is too informal a term for an encyclopaedia, note that JSTOR has 11,436 hits for "television show" and 14,809 hits for (("television programme") OR ("television program")). If "show" is good enough for the academic journals (i.e. the gold standard reliable source), it is good enough for the encyclopedia. So, per MOS:COMMONALITY, we should use the common term. I note that neither Gonnym nor AussieLegend point to any RFC supporting their view, and offer no evidence from eliable sources to support their view. I see that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television has been very heavily edited by AussieLegend,[1] and I don't see any evidence that there has been any discussion to form a broad community consensus to create an exception to MOS:COMMONALITY. If there has been such an RFC, then please link to it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that I have heavily edited the MOS, apparently in the hope of discrediting MOS:TV, is disingenuous at best. I have made a total of 44 edits in 9 years and most of the edits have been small, things like adding links or reverting inappropriate edits. I have edited it, but not a lot in the grand scheme of things. Most of the edits have been by other editors, and there have been a lot of detailed discussions in recent years by a lot of editors in an attempt to improve the MOS. You can see a list of the pages where the discussions were carried out at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates and, for the benefit of BrownHairedGirl, I had minimal involvement in the ones that I did participate in and no involvement in others. As I remember, these were advertised so the community was involved. The MOS prefers series, WP:NCTV uses series and there are many categories that use series so other categorisation should follow the well established practices and not do its own thing just because somebody doesn't like the term. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that neither Gonnym nor AussieLegend point to any RFC supporting their view. Wow, just wow. I point to MOS:TV and WP:NCTV which are both stable community guidelines that have been there for years, where exactly is your RfC that you point to? As I said, go ahead, start one, get your consensus and then return here. Going to through the backdoor, that you know is hardly seen by the wider community and has a very small set of editors, is hardly the way to go. As an aside, I'm more than willing to work with you to fix and figure out the best way to handle the inconsistencies, as I've worked with you with the template headings. I just don't think this brute force tactic is the correct approach. --Gonnym (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So there has been no RFC to establish a broad community consensus to create an exception to MOS:COMMONALITY, and no evidence to support the personal preferences of Gonnym and AussieLegend. Thanks for clearing that up. And Gonnym, thanks for the offer. I have enjoyed working with you before, and will work with you whatever the outcome ... but the best way to the best way to handle the inconsistencies is by removing them: apply MOS:COMMONALITY, and use the common term "shows", which as I have already shown is widely-used in scholarly sources. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what people are saying, not what you think they are saying. RfCs are not the ultimate authority for all things on Wikipedia. There has been wide discussion regarding MOS:TV and use of "series" over "show" that has as much, if not more, credibility than an RfC. Nor has anything to do with Gonnym and my preferences. This is as much a false claim as you saying that I had heavily edited MOS:TV when the evidence shows I have not.
as I have already shown is widely-used in scholarly sources - You've been around long enough to know that Wikipedia doesn't always follow "scholarly" sources. When MOS:TV and WP:NCTV were amended they were done so with cognisance of what reliable sources say which is why series was preferred.
MOS:TV and WP:NCTV use series, not show. What part of the MOS says we do? Regardless, we're not going to rename thousands of TV articles to suit your preference. That makes no sense. Instead, the categorisation should follow what the MOS says. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing the renaming of a single article. This discussion is about categories.
I am proposing that we follow MOS:COMMONALITY per usage in scholarly sources. You are the one promoting a personal preference.
Placing scare-quotes around the word scholarly in scholarly sources for a JSTOR search is, well, odd behavior. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. The proposal to use "show" makes less sense in that case. The MOS uses "series" not show so we should be following the MOS for categories as well as article names. Using one term for the actual articles and another for the categories makes no sense. The articles even use "series" in the prose.
2. MOS:COMMONALITY says to use universally accepted terms but the reality is that there are four universally accepted terms; show, program, programme and series. Wikipedia has chosen series, so that's what we should be using. And yes, this is supported on the very same page where MOS:COMMONALITY is documented: "Use italics for the titles of works (such as books, films, television series, named exhibitions, computer games, music albums, and paintings)" (bold added) "Individual episodes of television and radio series" Also, I am not advocating a personal preference; you need to stop making such silly claims. I am advocating what Wikipedia itself uses, what the MOS uses, and what WP:NCTV uses. You are ignoring that and advocating your own preference which is not supported.
3. Placing scare-quotes around the word scholarly in scholarly sources for a JSTOR search is, well, odd behavior. - No, not at all. The vast majority of sources that talk about television are not what would be regarded as "scholarly" sources. Instead they are sources like TV guides and such, which are not scholarly. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding the nom's opening sentence, Both television program and television series redirect to television show, so the category should match, it needs to be pointed out that the vast majority of TV articles in each category is titled "<Foo> (TV series)" as are the category names such as Category:Television series by creator and its subcategories. The problem here is really that television show should be redirected and the nom should have seen that. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd Support this. Having two categories with such a degree of overlap isn't helpful. Every TV series contains TV programmes by definition, and whereas the reverse isn't true, the potential debate over whether a programme is also a series isn't particularly helpful. Having two categories where the title of one has different meanings in different English speaking countries, and of the other is spelled differently, also isn't helpful. MOS:COMMONONALITY applies also to category titles, and combining these categories appears sensible. MapReader (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Combining categories is fine but it should be either "program" or "series" that is used, not "show". MOS:TV, WP:NCTV and thousands of TV articles support "series" but I don't have opposition to "program". --AussieLegend (✉) 09:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a combined category is best. The argument for “show” as against “program” is MOS:COMMONALITY MapReader (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, it's not. As I've said above, MOS:COMMONALITY says to use universally accepted terms but the reality is that there are four universally accepted terms; show, program, programme and series. Wikipedia has chosen series, so that's what we should be using. And yes, this is supported on the very same page where MOS:COMMONALITY is documented: "Use italics for the titles of works (such as books, films, television series, named exhibitions, computer games, music albums, and paintings)" (bold added) "Individual episodes of television and radio series" We should be using what is common on Wikipedia and that is definitely series. My own preference would be program, but that's not what the MOS prescribes. We also have many specifically named categories that use "series", as I explained earlier, and they should not be renamed so using show would exacerbate the problem rather than fixing it. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do object combining them. For example television films, news and commercials are not series. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is actually a very good reason why one category should cover them all, since nothing is gained by arguing about which shows (or programmes) should go into which overlapping category. MapReader (talk) 19:19, 17 April 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.