Talk:FlashForward (season 1)

Sourcing titles, etc. using SpoilerTV

SpoilerTV is an incredibly unreliable source for titles, air dates or anything but show gossip. They have no inside information, but rather, purchase casting calls from online sources and post what's available that way. As a result, they must speculate on broadcast order and broadcast dates, and routinely get episode titles wrong. I've removed everything sourced by them. Episode titles have very little meaning, and boxes loaded with TBA are just annoying. Let's wait until ABC announces titles and broadcast dates rather than jumping the gun based on what SpoilerTV claims is accurate, but often isn't. Drmargi (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

--- I updated the episode 8 title due to a quite credible source: David S. Goyer.

List of FlashForward episodes and FlashForward (season 1)

Isn't it a bit redundant to have two such list articles, especially since there currently is only one season? --78.34.249.237 (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

DVR Data in Ratings

An edit warring editor who seems to believe he owns this article and can determine the criteria for inclusion of ratings data on his own (WP:OWN) persists in reverting perfectly valid ratings data: the Live + 7 Day ratings for the show. It's only this season that these data are regularly reported, and they present an informative picture of viewership that Live ratings alone do not. The editor persists in removing them on the basis of their industry use, which has no relevance to the article. This is not an industry publication, but an encyclopedia used by a range of television viewers (among others.) User: Chaosmaster has yet to present a policy-based, or even relevant argument for removal of the data. I have twice requested discussion to consensus before reverting the data. Drmargi (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

While I don't mind that info, the way you are adding it is not the way to do it. By adding it straight in the column you lose the overview, especially because you have to go and see what it actually is by reading the note. I suggest you add a new section with a ratings-table and add them in a separate column. Please keep in mind that when your edit is undone you should have a discussion before reverting. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 10:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Before you correct someone on procedure, review the edit history. Castle is doing it the way I did here, so I was simply being consistent. The most complete ratings are the Live + 7 Day, and it can be argued they are the only ratings that belong in the table. The rationale that ad rates are based on overnights as a rationale for including them is thin at best, and the table already has two sets of ratings used: Weeks 1-3 are fast overnights and Week 4 is final overnights, so you've got a consistency problem to begin with. Putting Live + 7 Day in a separate table is pointless. I've always been of the opinion that ratings don't pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and this is why. Drmargi (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this edit warring from the beginning, same with the Castle one, the original rating was not the Live + 7 one. I did't say put Live +7 in a separate table, I said make a separate table for rating, (and thus remove them from the episode list) and make a separate column for Live + 7. The point being; if you want more than one rating number, make a separate table and remove them from the episode list (like this is done with Castle). But don't put more than one item in the same column because that is just confusing. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 14:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another ratings fiend who thinks he gets to say how it's done without engaging in the consensus process. I've come to the conclusion it's pointless to try to bring this up to current. Meanwhile, the warring editor goes on, unchecked. Drmargi (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't care for ratings, either one or neither is fine for me. I just give my opinion. In my opinion adding more than one item in the same column is unclear, for ratings or something else in table form for that matter. Both are wanted by two different editors, I see no problem for either party to just put them side to side with the proper headings. But this is just my opinion. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 18:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

UK Ratings

Please don't delete the UK ratings. A lot of US shows have international ratings tables with them, so don't delete the UK ratings. Tommyjgrimshaw (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"A lot of shows have US ratings" doesn't make a case for inclusion. By that logic, we include every country's and end up with an article all about ratings. Far better you start a new page on international viewership at put the ratings there. UK ratings have no bearing on the status of the US show, and as such as non-notable.Drmargi (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Making an international ratings page for just the UK ratings is pointless. If other people from other countries start posting ratings then a new page for international ratings would be a good idea. UK ratings are important to a US show because international ratings matter to the American network as a lot of their money comes from international broadcaster. The UK is a major market for American television because a lot of American shows have good viewership in the UK. Tommyjgrimshaw (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we sort this matter out in a mature way by compromising. Instead of an entire table dedicated to UK ratings, after each episode description, the UK ratings are displayed there. If other people from other countries start posting their ratings, then a new page for international ratings would be ideal. Tommyjgrimshaw (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

They certainly do not belong in the episode summary as this is the story of the episode and a rating has no meaning or place in it. The UK ratings are already on the episode page under Reception which should suffice as it is not a UK based show, and is more than what most shows have for non-US ratings. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no Reception section. Tommyjgrimshaw (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There are four Reception sections at the moment; Reception, Reception, Reception and Reception. Three of them have the UK rating in them, one of those even has only the UK rating in it. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 18:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't check each individual episode page nor did I realise that the international ratings were there. Tommyjgrimshaw (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no rationale for why the UK ratings, and UK ratings in particular, are notable or anything other than fancruft. Maturity has nothing to do with it. Additions that don't meet an encyclopedic standard do. Drmargi (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge episodes list (for now)

I've merged the List of FlashForward episodes and FlashForward (season 1) with this article. There's absolutely nothing wrong with either the list or the season 1 page as separate spin off articles, it's simply the fact that there's no need for them at this time. They both still exist as redirects to the main article (which is extremely simple to change), and the benefit is that all of us editors who are interested in the show can concentrate our efforts on a single article for now. The real benefit is to the reader though, who won't need to navigate through multiple articles for a while. We can easily switch back to separate articles next year, after season 2 starts. Note that there was an AFD for the List of FlashForward episodes article, which I NAC'ed after merging since the AFD is then a moot point. Deletion never made much sense for that anyway.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)