Talk:series finale

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

series finale

ibid. --Connel MacKenzie 11:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Set phrase with a different meaning in the UK. In the UK, this means what Americans would call a "season finale", because a UK series only runs for a year (season). --EncycloPetey 15:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete This seems more clearly compositional than "season finale", which uses a sense of "season" not even in Wiktionary (something like "a season's worth of performances"). "Series finale" is not limited in meaning to performing arts or broadcasting and does not seem ambiguous, as "season finale" would be even to someone who knew the rules of construction for English phrases. DCDuring 14:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware of the difference between the meaning of this term (as used in broadcasting) in the UK and in the US? In the UK, a series finale is a program that concludes the run of programs for a single year or at the end of a single production run lasting less than a year. A UK television program can therefore have a series finale each year. In the US, a series finale concludes the entire length of a program's run. So, an American program has only one series finale, even if it has run for seven years, because the series finale closes the entire run only. This means the term deserves an entry, since there is a significant difference in usage depending upon a major geographic region. --EncycloPetey 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's just because a UK "series" is a US "season". By your approach, we'd have an entry for "my pants are green" because it means something different in the UK as in the US. —Ruakh_TALK 00:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It just means that this and the above rfd should be considered in the same way (keep or delete). If there was an entry for "my pants are green", it would need two definitions within the page and a second entry for "my trousers are green" (which, rather asymetrically would not need two definitions). 87.114.156.2 08:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopetey: Are you saying that a UK speaker would have to specify which kind of finale he was talking about to be understood by someone in either the UK or the US? There would seem to be a difference in the way the word "series" is used (possibly requiring different senses of that word in a performing arts glossary) rather than a justification for including a compositional term, which would also need UK and US senses. Or am I missing something? DCDuring 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got most of my argument. The term series is used differently in the US and UK when talking about television programs (or programmes), for example. Take a look at what WP has had to do in the introductory paragraph of their article w:Series finale.

Further, the construction series finale is a set phrase in the US, and deserves an entry both for that reason and because it has two very different meanings whose usage consistently differs between the US and UK. The US sense also has UK synonyms that are not predictable from the inividual parts. You couldn't possibly know from looking at the antry for series that the US phrase series finale is given in the UK as final episode. (which in turn does not merit an entry because it does not seem to be a set phrase in the UK, though I may be mistaken.) --EncycloPetey 12:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, as above. I've been thinking about this, and bottom line, I don't think we serve any useful purpose at this point by demanding a clear showing of idiomaticity from all polywords. This is particularly the case since we not yet achieved any general consensus on which types of phrases are idiomatic and which are not. Thus the results of RFDs for these phrases tend to be capricious and inconsistent, which is a terrible disservice to contributors. IMO a plausible claim of idiomaticity within the entry should generally be sufficient to stave off deletion. -- Visviva 06:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting complete abandonment of any SoP criterion? If not what you observe would seem to warrant some consensus-building on decision criteria for phrases. I would expect that it would be a salutary exercise. Also, I have observed that parsing the compositional meanings of these phrases points out missing senses of the component words, remedying what seems a deficiency in Wikipedia. This general discussion doesn't really belong on this page. I will open a Beer Parlor topic, for anyone interested. DCDuring 11:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussing it in the Beer Parlour is a good idea. I just wish to point out though, that sum-of-parts by itself has never been a valid reason for deletion. It has been a good indication that something might not be OK. Usually, general consensus emerges pretty quickly, one way or the other (as it did here.) --Connel MacKenzie 07:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as listed in entry above.--Dmol 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)