Wikipedia

Talk:Bones season 10

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Is it entirely necessary to place the major season opener spoiler regarding Dr. Sweets on this page? I just had the happy experience of checking to see if the episode had premiered yet only to have it completely spoiled for me. I propose it might be better to place it in the episode summary section, since people wishing to avoid major spoilers will necessarily avoid reading that. 76.22.58.187 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

SpoilerTV

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's been recent that IPs are using SpoilerTV as a source. I find them unreliable as opposed to The Futon Critic. Should we be worried? Callmemirela (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Live +7 DVR

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

@Drovethrughosts: There is no reason to continue deleting the L+7 table on this page. I spent 3 hours collecting all of the information, and I've done it for many other shows too, including Resurrection, Empire, and Madam Secretary. There is A LOT more ratings data available (believe me, I spend A LOT of time researching ratings), this is NOT "overkill". Other shows, including Scandal, Modern Family, and How to Get Away with Murder, also include a L+SD Ratings table, which I intentionally left out on this page because THAT would be overkill. I respect most of what you do on Wikipedia, but please find something else to do. Rswallis10 (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

EDIT: In response to your comment in the edit summary, the viewership in the episode table IS NOT the same as the numbers in the L+7 table.

First, please, do not tell me find something else to do. If you'd look at my recent contributions, you would see I'm contributing heavily and not just sitting here idling waiting to revert your edits. Again, I pointed you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other articles do it, is not a reason for it. Are those GA/FA level articles? No they're not. I could easily point you to dozens and dozens of articles that do not include this type of information. It goes both ways. Just because you're obsessed with ratings information doesn't meant we need to dump every piece of ratings statistic information into an article. How is the series' L+7 ratings info notable? Is it somehow breaking records, is it #1? Will an average reader even know what L+7 means? I doubt it. Does an average reader know what 18-49 demo rating means? I doubt it. This is why it's cruft and overkill. Again, I point you to WP:NOTSTATS. Please read it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Drovethrughosts: Let me take care of your concerns one-by-one.

1. I am also contributing heavily, but I'm not going around reverting edits just because I don't like them.

2. I'm going to assume that you have a minimal understanding of L+7 info based on your response above. You are correct in saying that many shows do not include L+7 info on their pages, but the reasoning for that has nothing to do with its popularity, its simply because the INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE. The primary source for L+7 data only lists the Top 25 Shows in growth per week, and many shows do not make that list, or make it so infrequently that a "L+7 Table" would be irrelevant. For Bones, I have L+7 data for 20/22 episodes, which is MOST DEFINITELY enough to warrant a table.

3. Don't tell me to be respectful of other editors (i.e. you), then call me "obsessed." If you want respect, you have to give it first.

4. Its not only the top rated shows that include L+7 information. Shows including Parenthood, The Good Wife, Secrets and Lies, Gotham, Chicago P.D., Chicago Fire, and even iZombie include L+7 data.

5. As I've already stated, there IS A LOT MORE RATINGS INFORMATION THAT IS NOT INCLUDED. I am not including "every piece of ratings statistic information" in the article. Again, I'm going to have to assume that you don't know anything about TV Ratings (as you've shown nothing to prove otherwise), and explain the other types of info. Here are all the types of ratings data available that I can find for 'Bones':

  • L+3 Data (TV by the Numbers)
  • L+SD 18-49 Rank (TVBTN)
  • L+SD Viewership Rank (TVBTN)
  • Adults 18-34 Info (ShowBuzzDaily)
  • Women 18-34 Info (TV Media Insights)
  • Men 18-34 Info (TVMI)
  • Adults 25-54 Info (ShowBuzzDaily)
  • Women 25-54 Info (TVMI)
  • Men 25-54 Info (TVMI)
  • Women 18-49 (ShowBuzzDaily)
  • Men 18-49 (ShowBuzzDaily)
  • Adults 50+ (ShowBuzzDaily)
  • Household Ratings (TVMI)
  • Xfinity On Demand Ratings (TVBTN)
  • Tivo Rankings (TVMI)
  • Twitter Rankings (Nielsen)
  • Etcetera

I am only including L+7 data, and leaving ALL OF THAT ^^^ out of it. That shouldn't be a problem.

6. Finally, there is no explanation for L+7 on any other table because it is pretty self explanatory (the word DVR is right next to it), but if you'd like, I can include a detailed explanation of what the data means for any reader who doesn't understand, the Nielsen website has really good definitions.

Just because you do not find the information notable, doesn't mean that others won't. Please stop deleting it, and continue "heavily editing" elsewhere. Rswallis10 (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've linked you to guidelines multiple times, yet you just keep ignoring them. Just because other articles do it, is not a reason to include it. Unless it's a GA/FA level quality article, if it's not; then it's irrelevant and not an example to follow. I've also linked you to WP:NOTSTATS which is clearly relevant in this case: a sprawling list of statistics that isn't particularly notable to an average reader or easily understandable. This isn't TV by the Numbers or a ratings blog website. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Drovethrughosts: The list clearly isn't sprawling, and you clearly didn't read anything I've read. A "ratings blog website" includes everything on that list ^^^^^ from from my previous comment. All I am doing is incorporating one piece of ratings data (L+7). It really shouldn't be this big of a deal. Rswallis10 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
No, I read everything you wrote. I just feel this type of statistics listing is in line with WP:NOTSTATS. Just because you're finally being challenged by another editor with content your adding doesn't mean it's a "big deal". It happens. I still believe it has no place in the article as I view it's just indiscriminate information, but whatever. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I've been challenged by my fair share of editors, and many times I've conceded. Don't patronize me. Rswallis10 (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am merely here to add input on the addition of this type of rating on the season 11's page. The season hasn't even premiered and it serves absolute no purpose as of now. It just serves as TBA/TBA/empty content. Please do not restore the template again. As for the season 10, I never understood the point of L+7 nor do I intend to know now. I, also, can link a bunch of TV shows I watch or don't that don't include this rating. Just because you spent hours on it does not mean it belongs there, fyi. Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 02:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Callmemirela: I never restored the season 11 template after it was deleted by Drovethrughosts. He used the same explanation as you, and I listened. I appreciate your input, but it would've been more welcomed when the discussion was occurring, and not a day afterwards. The L+7 table has become a standard for all TV shows that have info available. I was merely trying to improve the page with extra information. Rswallis10 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Rswallis10: "3. Don't tell me to be respectful of other editors (i.e. you), then call me "obsessed." If you want respect, you have to give it first." - Do you realise how hypocritical it is to tell another editor to "find something else to do PLEASE",[1] and then make that statement? Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort. We're all supposed to work together and there is no excuse for incivility from anyone. Nor does edit-warring help. Instead of telling Drovethrughosts, "dont remove again",[2] you should have come here to seek consensus for the additions. Please remember that next time. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@AussieLegend: Thanks for your input, and for fixing the L+7 table. I appreciate it. Maybe you didn't realize that I'm the one who came to this page and stopped reverting edits. Drovethrughosts had no intention of coming to this page until I did. He reverted my edits exactly the same number of times that I reverted his, so I don't appreciate you only coming to me about MY edit warring. It takes 2 to edit war, and I followed protocol and came here. I'm sorry if you don't like me, but at least I'm trying to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, unlike many. Rswallis10 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I do realise that you reverted twice before coming here.[3][4] I'm not condoning the edit warring by either of you, but at least Drovethrughosts wasn't being uncivil in his edit summaries, which you certainly were. If you think you followed protocol, I suggest you read WP:BRD again. The protocol is bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert, revert and be uncivil, discuss and be uncivil. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bones (season 10). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bones (season 10). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Bones (season 10). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bones_season_10&oldid=1216214338"