Talk:game show

Tea room discussion

Note: the below discussion was moved from the Wiktionary:Tea room.

Should these two definitions really be separate - surely they should be merged?

1. A radio or television programme ...
2. An episode of such programme ... —Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would mark the second definition with {{rfv-sense}} and post in RFV. I've never heard of a single episode of such a program referred to as a "game show"; I've only ever heard the term applied to the program(me)/series itself. Consider: "There were two Price is Right game shows each morning." doesn't sound right. There might be two episodes or two airings, but there is only one game show. --EncycloPetey 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But if one watches a "game show" today, isn't that only one episode. I would expect both definitions to be true and readily attestable. In a frequentative use of "watch" it would have to the the first sense" "I watch may favorite "game show" every day." DCDuring TALK 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, you're only watching one episode, of course. But you're watching the program, no? And I think that the latter is meant by "watch a game show today". Kinda like "I watched M*A*S*H today": the referent is the television series, even though I only watched one episode.—msh210℠ 17:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

game show

Rfv-sense surely included in the more general Sense#1. —Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 10:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

copied for Tearoom:

I would mark the second definition with {{rfv-sense}} and post in RFV. I've never heard of a single episode of such a program referred to as a "game show"; I've only ever heard the term applied to the program(me)/series itself. Consider: "There were two Price is Right game shows each morning." doesn't sound right. There might be two episodes or two airings, but there is only one game show. --EncycloPetey 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But if one watches a "game show" today, isn't that only one episode. I would expect both definitions to be true and readily attestable. In a frequentative use of "watch" it would have to the the first sense" "I watch may favorite "game show" every day." DCDuring TALK 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely this applies to practically every entry. —Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 10:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with EP. I think "game show" still refers to the show as a whole, even if you only watch one episode. Would you ever say "I watched two game shows today" meaning that you'd watched two episodes of a single game show? —Ruakh_TALK 21:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The facts of the matter are that it does not arise because a game show rarely (never?) airs twice in the same day.

I view this as something like magazine (“serial publication”). The term refers to a physical issue of the magazine ("The magazine was torn"), the business of running the magazine ("The magazine laid off three editors"), and the content of the magazine ("The magazine said ...."). If we want to save ink or screen space, we can certainly do so. Some words are almost identical to this in their functioning (show, newspaper). (Notice that both durable and ephemeral entities can be involved.) But not every series of things works the same way. A play is different, with the word applicable to the script, the production, a particular performance. "Senate" applies to an abstract entity, a specific body of office holders (optionally including the staff), and a two-year term of the body.

I suppose we don't say that we will include all senses of all words in all languages, but I'm not sure that I know how to draw the line among senses to include and those to exclude. The meaning of "game show" looks different to someone who is likely to only see one episode or a fragment, a habitual watcher, or someone involved in putting on the show. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The facts of the matter are that some game shows do regularly air twice in the same day because different networks set different air times for their programs. I can watch Jeopardy! three time a day (if I wanted to). I view this as more like cop show; if someone says they watched three cop shows today, I automatically assume they mean three episodes from three different titles. This, like game show is a case of reverse metonymy, where the name of the whole is used to stand in for referring to one of its instances. And just as we wouldn't define every possible metonymous sense, we shouldn't try to do so here either. --EncycloPetey 02:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Which ones do we define? All the non-redundant senses that are verifiable, I guess. So how would one write definitions to eliminate the need for multiple senses such as of magazine ? DCDuring TALK 03:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we stick with the one sense, and leave it to the reader to understand metonymy. Otherwise we'll be diluting useful information with a mountain of trivialities. If you want to start a vote to include all metnymic senses of words, please do. All previous discussions we've had rejected the idea. --EncycloPetey 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at book to see how a common word might reveal the principle of "understood metonomy". In that case I found a def. of book as a bound collection of pages (and many other defs.), but not a sense that I believe corresponds to "He wrote a book", "He has a book in him", "He wrote the book on that". (Examples may include more than one sense.) I may well not understand metonymy. If there is a weakness of that entry I would like to understand how that entry can be improved to include what seems to me to be the missing sense. DCDuring TALK 18:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion of book probably ought to be separate. I will open a TR discussion TR#book DCDuring TALK 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 01:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)