Talk:television show

RFD 1
SOP. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, strong delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Widely used term. It's not SOP, because how would someone know which definition of "show" you were talking about?  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * delete. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 03:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to give a reason? Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 03:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because (IMO) WT:CFI says "An expression is “idiomatic” if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." In this case it is very easy to do so. Arguments about show having many meanings are not central to the argument; native and competent speakers understand this term. The fact that it's hypothetically possible to not understand it is a weak and for me anyway, irritating argument. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Arguments about show having multiple meanings are too central to the argument! If you didn't know exactly which "show" you meant, you couldn't figure out what "television show" meant!  And you're discounting the "people can't figure it out" argument just because you don't like it?  That, for me, is a weak and irritating argument.  As is James' vote above that's just a !vote without any reasons listed  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 14:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason's already stated by the initator of the topic. Why repeating it?! I don't feel like arguing with you. I have my opinion and my opinion is it's SOP. You aren't gonna change my mind here. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah but a fair reason for it not being SOP is that there are multiple definitions of show which can lead to idiomaticity, it would be constructive to approach that as this is a common argument without a reasonable answer.Lucifer 19:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. In this case, "television show" is given as an example at the relevant meaning of "show", which answers the question "how would someone know which definition of 'show' you were talking about?" More generally, though, if any part of Wiktionary's remit is concerned with catering for English learners, then it is in my opinion very helpful to keep these kinds of set expressions/terms and standard collocations (unless they are unmistakably and glaringly obvious from the component parts, which "television show" is not). I know from my own experience with language learning how hard it can be to make sense of multi-word terms the words have multiple meanings. By the way, the fact that "native and competent speakers understand this term" is not in itself an argument that it should not be in a dictionary. All dictionaries contain thousands of meanings that native and competent speakers are certain to already understand. 86.160.220.165 14:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about 'any dictionary', just specifically this dictionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, other dictionaries don't have arbitrary rules. Looking at the American Heritage dictionary by my computer, probably 10% of the words defined in it would fail some arbitrary guideline or another.  Wiktionary is supposed to be more expansive than a paper dictionary, not less expansive  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. I don't see how including multi-word phrases that any Tom, Dick or Harry can work out the meaning of doesn't seem like a selling point, more like a 'stay away' point to me. Anyway this sort of discussion belongs at Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your assumption that "any Tom, Dick or Harry can work [them] out" is unproven and fallacious, for this definition or for any definition. It also violates the expansionist nature of NOTPAPER.  A discussion has been started  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't take me too literally. I didn't mean every person in the world. And I don't think that should be our aim, that is, every person in the world. What about people who cannot read any English at all? No matter how many sum-of-parts entries we create, it won't help them. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course not. That's hardly the point. 86.177.106.236 20:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Any conceivable general-purpose dictionary -- whether Wiktionary or any other -- will inevitably contain thousands of entries that native and competent speakers already understand. The fact that such speakers are likely to already understand a word or term is completely bogus as a reason for excluding it, as a moment's reflection will confirm. 86.177.106.236 20:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've been thinking this one over a lot before commenting, because it feels like it should be kept, but I could not actually see any reason why, until I found this quote:
 * 1972, United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary
 * I have not been back to the prison except when I most recently attended a television show with Representative John Conyers.
 * If a television show is simply the reception of a broadcast, then attending the show is not possible. The phrase seems to refer both to a production and to a received broadcast, and the broadcast is edited so as not to be identical to the performance.  Likewise, I find quotations by searching for "worked on a television show", which means the production crew, and not the charatcer in the program.  So, there seem to be at least two senses for this combination. --EncycloPetey 17:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One could also attestably define a television show as a "waster of time", a "babysitter", or "a source of information about life on earth for extraterrestrials", based on its possible relationships.
 * I could find citations for report focusing on it being prepared and it being read. Does that need two definitions? DCDuring TALK 18:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine how this differs from a radio show, some of which I've attended, and my family has worked on.--Prosfilaes 22:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as a term that would be justified as being a translation target were that a criterion we recognized. It's inclusion in WordNet is suggestive in this regard. Is it time for a vote on accepting inclusion in WordNet (or any semantic reference of similar authority) as sufficient evidence for inclusion? DCDuring TALK 19:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's time. As I've said, a person who spoke another language and didn't know what "show" meant couldn't figure out what "television show" meant.  And it's quite likely that the word for television show isn't SOP in other languages  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're having trouble with show, then look at show; it even uses television show as an example for the appropriate sense.--Prosfilaes 21:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete A show, whether it be a theatrical show or whatever, can be attended or worked on.--Prosfilaes 21:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But for a theatrical show, what is prepared, attended, and seen are all the same thing. For a television show, there is (1) the production, which differs from (2) the receieved broadcast, which differs from (3) the sequence of programs that are collectively referred to as that television show. --EncycloPetey 18:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I'd say that's not part of the definition, so it's irrelevant. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For a radio show, they aren't all the same thing. Nor for an Internet show (and yes, I could cite three sources for Internet show in this sense.)--Prosfilaes 22:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My (paper) Harrap's Shorter dictionary provides a definition for film show, and it's not a waste of paper. In French, show is used, but not for cinema or television. Lmaltier 17:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You know it may seem like a silly entry but it is a set term and having a one sentence definition would be quite useful.Lucifer 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah... pretty SOP, I'd say. dulete —  [Ric Laurent] — 12:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or move to and redirect to show.Lucifer 23:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't redirect; if it's deleted, when searching the search will find both 'television' and 'show', but not if we make it redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to show but I think it should be kept. It is shortned to show and it is a telivsion kind of show, but even if it is on netflix or online only it's always a show.Lucifer 03:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 16:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

RFD 2
I ask that the deletion of television show be reconsidered for the following five reasons:


 * 1) There weren't a significantly greater number of "delete" votes as "keep" ones, as such, the RfD should have been either closed as "no consensus" or kept open longer
 * 2) It's been a number of months since the RfD, consensus can change
 * 3) SOP doesn't apply in this case because the meaning of "show" is ambiguous
 * 4) Potential translation target; likely that some languages have a single word for the concept
 * 5) It's a commonly used term; there's generally been a consensus to keep stuff like that.

Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 14:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like a decent shout for an undelete. The typical argument for deleting this is that since show has more than one meaning, any use of the word 'show' can be ambiguous, which is precisely why we define them at show and not in various other entries such as TV show, radio show and so on. Similarly television doesn't only go with show put also television program/television programme. Anyway, over to you guys to keep debating. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The first reason looks valid. The fourth and fifth are not reasons to have entries. The third isn't either (meaning, SOP may well apply even though a part is ambiguous). And the second is insufficient IMO to re-raise an RFD, else we'd be rediscussing everything all the time. But per the first reason, I'm happy to continue the RFD discussion here, bearing in mind that it's a continuation (i.e., should be read with the old one). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: point #1: by my reading, those supporting deletion were, , , , and ; those opposing deletion were and . The non-voting commenters were / (who rejected some of the deletion arguments, but explicitly wrote "Comment" rather than "Keep"),  (who seemed to prefer keeping, but again, explicitly wrote "Comment" rather than "Keep"), and  (who seemed to prefer deletion). The entry was deleted, and discussion closed, by , who had not participated in the discussion before that point. All told, this looks like a correctly resolved RFD. (Note: I'm not commenting on whether this collocation should have an entry, only on whether the previous RFD discussion was closed correctly.) —Ruakh TALK</i > 17:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, I guess you're right. I rescind my note just above. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As a set term and also I believe it is included in the OED perhaps we should reconsider. PBP why don't you create citations for it first, perhaps some that show the ambiguity between show and (tv) show?Lucifer (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) 5 votes for deletion and 2 for keeping? Strikes me as significantly greater;
 * 2) Yes it can, so let’s see where this RFD goes. I abstain for now but unless some good evidence and arguments come I’ll vote don’t undelete;
 * 3) Context makes it clear, thus is still non-idiomatic per bank parking lot example;
 * 4) Could be, but that’s hypothetical;
 * 5) So are white sheet, green leaf, television screen and millions of other SOPs.
 * — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also "It's a commonly used term; there's generally been a consensus to keep stuff like that" I don't think so, we have a lot of common terms here on RFD that are common but don't meet CFI. If you can providence to support your opinion, please do. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe it's not SOP, as, after Wikipedia, it's synonymous to television program, while the German translation by parts, Fernsehshow, means a different format (i.e. something like sense 1. of show), but definitely not any program (sense 4. of show). Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Free formed collocations and phrases like "nice weather in London" don't count.
 * Does this dictionary count as a good source? television show@dictionary.com as per DCDuring's suggestion to check in monolingual dictionaries (see Christmas card, birthday card discussions)? Definition: a program broadcast by television, synonym: television program (also has a definition). Undelete --Anatoli (обсудить) 13:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dictionary.com reports WordNet's entry for the term. All of the inclusions of seem to be based on WordNet. WordNet is not a dictionary. It has been funded to provide a database for machine processing of natural language. It is distributed by various online dictionary-type portals because it is "freely and publicly available for download". I am not sure about its current criteria for inclusion. DCDuring TALK  13:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What's the verdict, DCDuring? The word does exist in monolingual dictionaries. --Anatoli (обсудить) 00:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it to be a set phrase, as it fails coordination tests (eg, "television or radio show"). The meaning seems compositional to me. The translation-target argument ought to be irrelevant. Tho sole "real" lemming is WordNet which is conceptual, rather than linguistic in its focus. OTOH, some online dictionary sources find WordNet worth following. It would be a limited accommodation to the desired to translate some common SoP collocations to include terms from WordNet automatically. It would not overwhelm us with SoP drivel to respect WordNet as a lemming. This seems to me to possibly worth a BP-level discussion. DCDuring TALK 04:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with coordination tests. E.g. "status and progress bar" splits status bar and progress bar, also "double and triple star", "giant and red panda", "polar and brown bear", "CD and DVD player" and there could be many other examples. Like CD player, "television show" or "TV show" doesn't seem to me a SoP. The translation-target argument should be relevant but not with all languages. It also demonstrates that somewhere this argument has been already solved, e.g. Russian "телешоу" (telešóu). At least, we should have it as a translation target where a target language is a solid word ( producing: This entry is here for translation purposes only.). --Anatoli (обсудить) 04:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not every idiom is a set phrase. I only mean to disagree with the notion that the incantation "set phrase", which I have never seen here with any empirical support, applies as a unquestioned rationale for inclusion of this term.
 * The vernacular species names are associated with different species. Have the other terms gone through RfD?
 * If other Wiktionaries would like to include SoP translation targets that option is available to them. I don't participate in discussions on this Wiktionary involving languages I don't know, so I can't speak to that example. I confine my advocacy to practice about the English language. I really don't understand why considerations of other languages should govern practice for English. Conversely, I've often wondered why there is almost no effort to translate English idiomatic terms, such as those in Category:English phrasal verbs. DCDuring TALK 08:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea is, that if a translation is not possible based on the translations of the parts, then it makes sense to include those translations. On the other hand if a SOP term has mainly one-word idiomatic translations, then this could be taken as an indicator of a certain setness similar to WT:COALMINE. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Well, I thought this was a dictionary of English, not mentalese; that it covered language, principally the English language, not concepts. DCDuring TALK 15:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Contrast with car show. It's a show on televisions, not someone showing televisions, like a car show is showing cars. 4.238.7.29 14:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we should add car show auto show, automobile show, hot rod show, gun show, flower show, horse show, antique show, computer show, consumer electronics show etc because folks won't know which kind of show is involved. And in some cases we would need multiple definitions because both kinds of show exist and maybe even more, not to mention the possibility that the other term might be ambiguous, too. DCDuring TALK 16:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Don’t undelete. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain that this deserves its own entry, but the distinction between show and showing is notable, as a television show is a musical, comedic, or other presentation that uses television as its medium, and a television showing would be a collection of televisions presented for display or comparison.--Jacecar (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The essence of that distinction should be found at show and showing. DCDuring TALK 12:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't undelete. I think the argument that it is in the OED is weak unless we are going to say that all OED entries should automatically bypass our CFI and get an entry on Wiktionary.  OED lists 65 compounds for television, a large number (possibly most) of which we would undoubtedly consider SOP.  Examples: television reporter, television interview, television programme, television pundit, television camera, television engineer, television antenna. <font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning <font style="color:#4840a0">Spark  09:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Does the OED define those terms, or merely list them as collocations? If we undelete this, we must add a definition for it; if the OED has none, that is especially poor justification for Wiktionary's undeletion. Equinox ◑ 09:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The OED gives no definition for television show. Of those 65 compounds, the only ones that have individual definitions are television camera tube, television engineer, television evangelist, television licence, television mast, television network, television picture, television region, television satellite, television station, and television tube.  They are, however, grouped into general headings and television show comes under "Connected with, participating in, or transmitted as part of organized television broadcasting." <font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning <font style="color:#4840a0">Spark  11:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Closing as a failed request for undeletion; no interest in the month since further input was requested. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 20:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

television show
Restore and keep. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? DCDuring TALK 22:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's a word, defined in a number of dictionaries, borrowed by other languages as is or in the abbreviated form, it's a translation target - many languages have single-word idiomatic equivalents, it has synonyms/alternative forms: TV show, teleshow, television program, TV program. The deletion of the term was brought up in the RFD many times by other users. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Leave deleted; this has already failed RFD at least twice. If it has single-word synonyms, (a) so what? that's no good indicator of idiomaticity / dictionary-worthiness, (b) those single-word synonyms can be the translation targets. - -sche (discuss) 23:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not worried about translations, I just think it's an English word with a specific meaning. That's why teleshow exists. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to During above, the Google n-gram for television show, television program, TV show, TV program: Google Ngram Viewer (television show,television program,TV show,TV program). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't restore. Show is a word. A television show is a show that happens to be on television, as opposed to a Broadway show or radio show, which are on Broadway and radio, respectively. --WikiTiki89 00:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, many words have clear etymology but it doesn't make them non-words. Definition: "a program broadcast by television" "television show" @ dictionary.reference.com, "television show" @ www.thefreedictionary.com. It may not only be "a program" but also a drama, series, etc but this definition needs to be confirmed. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not about the etymology. It's about the fact that if you know what televeision is and you know what a show is, you will then understand what a television show is without any further non-contextual information. That is what SOP means. --WikiTiki89 00:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Yellow car", "a book of", "I said", "long word" are a SOP but "prepositional pronoun", "wide are network", "fire extinguisher", "higher education", "spell checker", "cardinal number", "aphthous ulcer" and many others, whose meaning you can tell by their parts, many of which have already passed RFD and are defined by far more respectable dictionaries are not SOP. Dictionary words can be multi-word. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are misusing the word "SOP". SOP (sum of parts) means that you can tell the meaning of a word from its parts. Some SOP terms pass RFD for other reasons, but they are still SOP. --WikiTiki89 01:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Misuse" is applicable to both pro- and anti-deletion commenters, like "yellow car" is used by both. I was just trying to clarify my take on SOP with a bit of exaggeration, it doesn't necessarily involve a big change in meaning. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Using a term for something other than its accepted meaning is usually referred to as "misuse". There is not even a small change in meaning of either television or show when you put them together into television show. --WikiTiki89 01:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you can say that when there are so many definitions of "show", though, several of which aren't applicable to TV shows Purplebackpack89  <font color="FFAB00">(Notes Taken) <font color="FFAB00">(Locker) 01:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's more of a problem with our entry for [[show]], which needs to be cleaned up; many of the senses can be merged. But essentially, we are dealing here with the primary sense, not some obscure sense at the end of the list. --WikiTiki89 01:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This suggestion is similar to your suggestion to host translations of "apple tree" at "apple". I have just read your comment there. Why is a SOP, as you said, "apple tree" better than "television show" and you were undecided? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I explained the whole thing there with the example of "oak tree". The word "oak" has no other purpose other than to be followed by "tree", "wood", etc (sometimes "oak tree" or "oak wood" are shortened to just "oak", but that's a different story), however, "television" is a completely standalone word. --WikiTiki89 01:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Wikitiki89 (after an EC) If you look at the history of this page or at the list of parts of speech in any language you speak, you will see that there is no such thing as "accepted meaning of SOP". Don't accuse me of misusing the term, "petrol station" and "television show" (and others I listed) can equally be idiomatic or non-idiomatic depending on who you ask. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about idiomacity. SOP-ness is a related concept but is not 100% correlated with idiomacity. A word can be idiomatic and SOP at the same time. I agree that many editors misuse SOP, but in a logical discussion, words need to have predefined meanings or no one will understand anyone else. --WikiTiki89 01:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you want to try your luck RFD-ing "gas station" or "petrol station" or do any of the senses of gas/petrol make these terms more idiomatic than "television show"? If yes, which ones? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would vote to delete those, but I don't feel compelled to go and bring it up here myself. --WikiTiki89 01:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Such deletions won't help any dictionary better, even if I see the logic in your desire to rid Wiktionary of multi-part words. And you don't have to maintain those entries. You haven't said why "apple tree" is better (more idiomatic, worth keeping) than "television show". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have said that, although I made my argument with "oak tree". It is harder to talk about "apple tree" because "apple" is also a fruit of that tree, but I think that "apple tree" is the same sort of construction as "oak tree", rather than a "tree that grows apples". None of these arguments apply to "television show" or "illegal immigrant", as I have already said several times and would prefer not to have to say again. --WikiTiki89 02:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You vehemently argue for deletions and you don't expect that you have to repeat yourself in a different discussion? I don't see good reasoning in your explanations about oak and apple trees but I won't ask you again. You have made your opinion very clear, so have I. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant that I don't want to have to repeat is the fact that the arguments for "apple tree" do not apply to those for "television show" or "illegal immigrant". I wasn't talking about repeating arguments. --WikiTiki89 02:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, they are different words. Re: "apple tree" because "apple" is also a fruit of that tree". Then you need to go back to "vegetable garden" and vote "keep" but I'm sure you'll be able to tweak your answer again and be the last to comment as usual. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I know sometimes my logic is hard to follow, but what I meant was that I used "oak tree" as an example because it is more difficult to discuss "apple tree". "apple" being a fruit of an "apple tree" is the reason that its harder to discuss "apple tree" than it is to discuss "oak tree". I was not using it as an argument for keeping or deleting, but as the reasoning for using the "oak tree" example instead of talking directly about "apple tree". --WikiTiki89 03:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't say that! Somebody might actually do it! (I'd vote keep, of course, because, like "show", "station" is ambiguous)  Purplebackpack89  <font color="FFAB00">(Notes Taken) <font color="FFAB00">(Locker) 01:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If they don't pass, they may not get full legitimacy but there's a huge list of potential candidates. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * @Wikitiki89: I don't have a comment to make about television show, just a question. I was under the impression that SOP was the opposite of idiomatic — what would be an example of a word that's SOP but still idiomatic? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. Maybe "short story"? --WikiTiki89 02:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess any SOP phrase where you can't substitute any of the words for synonyms. --WikiTiki89 02:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Like "bad luck" and "tough luck"? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because in that case you can substitute any synonym for "bad" ("poor luck", "horrible luck", etc.). I'm having trouble coming up with a reason to keep "bad luck" so I'd probably vote delete if it were brought up here ("tough luck" is different because it is usually an interjection). --WikiTiki89 04:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Restore: per Anatoli, and because "show" is too ambiguous for SOP to really apply. There are 11 definitions for show as a noun alone!  Purplebackpack89  <font color="FFAB00">(Notes Taken) <font color="FFAB00">(Locker) 01:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don’t undelete. SOP, and the translations can be hosted in any of the idiomatic equivalents. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But Ungoliant, "show" is ambiguous, which throws the SOP argument into question Purplebackpack89  <font color="FFAB00">(Notes Taken) <font color="FFAB00">(Locker) 01:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The definition of "show" in question here is its first definition. There is not much ambiguity as to which one it refers to. --WikiTiki89 01:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * @Ungoliant (after three edit conflicts!). As I said, I'm not worried about translations here (I haven't seen anyone worried about translations), I just think it's more idiomatic and much more common than "teleshow", which is derived from "television show" or "television program". As Google n-gram suggests, it's growing fast in usage too. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, "fear of long words" is much more common than "sesquipedaliophobia". Having a less-common, one-word synonym doesn't make a phrase SOP. --WikiTiki89 01:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "fear of long words" is SOP from my point of view, it's a description, not a word. The example "television show" and "teleshow" is quite different and is similar to WT:COALMINE, even if "television" is shortened to a prefix "tele-". --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you can't say "television show" is a description of a type of "show". I'm not a big fan of WT:COALMINE, and I would support a vote to get rid of it; but as long as it is policy, it must be enforced. In fact I even made a fake entry at User:Wikitiki89/coalmine of how I imagine [[coalmine]] looking if [[coal mine]] is deleted. --WikiTiki89 02:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WT:COALMINE is only about a shortcut, debate-curtailing method of accepting orthographic evidence as sufficient evidence of idiomaticity. There is no such evidence presented here. It is irrelevant, not even a canard, because its irrelevance should be obvious to all. DCDuring TALK 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Restore (keep) as a translation target. This will be useful for translations; the Russian ones seem to include common non-compounds "телепрограмма", "телепередача" and "телешоу"; for frequencies, see (courtesy of ). And translation of the combinations of "show" in various languages is not compositional (sum-of-partish), I believe: "television show" is cs:"televizní pořad" while "Broadway show" is definitely not *"Broadway pořad" či *"Broadwayový pořad", "rodeo show" is not *"rodeový pořad" či *"rodeo pořad", "theatre show" is almost never "divadelní pořad" but rather "divadelní představení". When you go to Google translate, you'll see that Google has "television show" as a single translation unit for several languages, including Chinese (their name), Russian, Spanish, and Japanese; you can see that by hovering over the non-English translation on the right, at which point you get to see the translation units highlighted. On another note, hosting the translations on teleshow is outright ridiculous: . --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Restore, reinstate, undelete. If teleshow is used in science fiction, it's too far out, haha. Donnanz (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Restore and keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't restore. Per above and previous discussion. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Restore as  per DP. — Keφr 08:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

For restoring: Anatoli, PBP, DP, Donnanz, Matthias Buchmeier, me (6 people). For deletion: -sche, Wikitiki89, Ungoliant, Msh210, DCDuring (5 people). Anyone else wants to comment, or should this be closed as "not restored for no consensus"? — Keφr 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since we don't have a policy on restoring, the vote count can be interpreted as "no consensus" for deletion of the entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Closed as restored. Our principles tend to favor inclusion unless there is consensus to exclude (as evidenced by the fact that anyone can create an entry, and unless the entry is nonsense or meets some other speedy deletion criteria, some process must be used to gauge consensus in favor of deleting the entry). This seems to have gone back and forth, but since we have no set rules on requests for the restoration of previously deleted entries, I believe that the best course of action is to restore, let the entry sit for some time so that advocates for its existence can improve it to the greatest degree possible to show its utility, and then have this discussion again at some future point of advocates of deleting it continue to feel that it should be removed. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 19:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your principles tend to favour inclusion unless there is consensus to exclude. We have inclusion criteria rather than deletion criteria (speedy or not); whatever fails to meet them is deleted. Whatever cannot be verified to exist is deleted, regardless of consensus. When there is no agreement on whether criteria are met, the default is no action — which often means keeping, but not necessarily so. — Keφr 08:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that 1) I did not participate in this discussion, and 2) I closed the previous discussion on the same topic is opposing restoration, using the same considerations. I am neutral on the question, and am only wearing the hat of an administrator closing a discussion that has run its course, as I have hundreds of times before. In this case, it is questionable whether there was ever a consensus to delete the entry that had initially existed, and that deletion has been a continuing source of controversy, so that weighs somewhat more in favor of restoring the entry and giving those who wished to have it kept the opportunity to make such improvements to it as they think are likely to demonstrate its value. Since the ultimate purpose of this project is to help readers find definitions or translations they might be looking for, our CFI is fairly broadly inclusive. There has not been an argument that this term is unverifiable, so the issue must turn on whether the phrase meets any of the battery of tests imposed on phrases containing a space. I have no opinion on whether any of these apply here; I only have a reading of a community divided on that question, without a present consensus that the term should be excluded. If, after some appropriate period of time for work on the entry, editors continue to think that it should not exist, then the question can and should be revived. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 22:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March 2018
Rfv-sense: he taping of a television broadcast

Tagged but not listed. And now cited Kiwima (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)