This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The numbers in the article do not correspond to the numbers in the reference section. I don't know how to fix it. Looking at it further, the problem is with having reference 19a,b. 20 is skipped in the article, but not the reference section.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.66.93 ( talk) 22:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not have a problem with adding Canadian Ratings to the table but here are my concerns:
1. It is not common to see BOTH US and Canadian Ratings in the table and makes the table seem somewhat packed.
2. Replacing the US Ratings with Canadian presents the following problem:
3. Replacing the US Ratings with Canadians BUT adding a separate and comprehensive table for US Ratings presents the following problem:
4. Adding a separate and comprehensive table for Canadian Ratings presents the following problem:
5. Removal of US Ratings from table and adding a separate comprehensive table for both US and Canadian Ratings (like in the Flashpoint entry) presents the following problem:
Weekly rankings can be found here:
Ep 1:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/29/tv-ratings-top-25-americas-got-talent-wipeout-hells-kitchen-crowd-the-top-of-weeks-ratings/55620
Ep 2:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/07/07/tv-ratings-top-25-americas-got-talent-bachelorette-wipeout-fill-the-top-of-the-rankings/56155
The next set of rankings should be available on tues possibly on wed.
Having said all this. Rankings are practically useless. You can easily discern where a show came given enough research (albeit a bit tedious) but rankings don't usually mean anything unless your talking about where a show finished at the end of its season against others. Again, its odd to have a comprehensive list that shows something as "meaningless" as rankings without showing something like household ratings. Consider splitting the tables so its not so packed and secondly, is it necessary to have Canadian ratings in the episode list? Its obviously redundant at this point. Meowies ( talk) 03:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for my late reply as I have been a little busy of late. In any case, perhaps I was not being clear to begin with. Neither US or Canadian ratings should appear on the episode list if the comprehensive table is to house both already. Like I said its just redundant. As for rankings providing context. That's arguable. Your talking about two totally different countries, and your trying to compare them on same level which makes it even more strange, given you never really wanted the US ratings to start with. I'm quite certain anyone who sees the numbers (total viewers) will know its because of a population difference. Not to sound harsh, but I really don't think your giving people enough credit. In regards to the readability of the table, maybe I am just a minimalist or maybe its the font or both, I'm not sure, but I will reserve final judgement until I see it when its close to completion. In regards to the the conflicting ratings. There is also another conflict, in which one of references from Canwest said the premier was at 1.8mil [2]. As a result of multiple conflicts there would also be naturally a conflict with the 18-49 share. On a related manner I will suspend the Canadian ratings on the main article page. I will leave a note explaining a conflict. Meowies ( talk) 03:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll clear the air here before I continue upon the current situation.
I feel like I am being painted as the bad guy here, and that my editing and/or the editing of others is considered to be an American POV. I quote Deliriousandlost:
Yet it was apparently Americans who started this article. |
For the record. Yes I started this article. No I am not American. Such accusations that I am American and therefore my stance at maintaining the American ratings is of a POV nature are not only unfounded but unfair.
Secondly in regards to the link and image. This is no place to discuss such an issue here to begin with, and bringing it up in this situation is simply adding fuel to the fire. Furthermore it is simply a slap in the face given that just hours prior to your post I had re-opened dialogue asking for help choosing 1 of 4 new images for the infobox located here: Talk:Rookie Blue#New_Image. Since you have brought this up I have no choice but to defend myself and the editors involved about violations of NPOV. The items in question were added in this edit: [5] at 23:08, 17 May 2010. At the time of the edit the only available material was from the ABC. I refer you to the following two links. The first will show that the ABC Rookie Blue website was indexed on the 28 Apr 2010. The second link will show that the GlobalTV Rookie Blue website was indexed on the 12 Jun 2010. Hell I will even used google.ca:
ABC:
Global:
As you can see Logical_Fuzz did no wrong as the material from Global was not available to him/her till nearly a month later. As far as I know Logical_Fuzz is in the North American region. Specifically what nationality I am unsure of, but his/her edits were made in good faith and not in an American POV. Any further allegations that state me or other editors that have contributed to this article or the main article have violated NPOV, without proper proof backing those allegations; will not be met with too kindly.
Third. I was the one who added that is was a Canadian police drama (evidence here: [6]) as I accept it is a mainly a Canadian production. If I wanted to I could easily say it was a Canadian-American production. This should further dispel any such allegations that I am in violation of NPOV.
Now on with what I am to say. As I said I accept that this is mainly a Canadian Production. The page says Canadian but it also says the following:
The series is a joint venture between Canwest Broadcasting and ABC, and produced by E1 Entertainment. |
Given that Canwest also put out a joint announcement with the ABC ( [7]) renewing Rookie Blue for a second season, I think it is fair to say a joint venture doesn't mean that anything American immediately takes a back seat. In regards to the "Do not add foreign broadcasters here" comment. I am confused. Are you suggesting we remove the ABC as the original channel? Or have you just read it wrong and trying to argue that the picture and website don't below because it says "Do not add foreign broadcasters here"?
Read the first sentence of this whole exchange.
"I do not have a problem with adding Canadian Ratings to the table but here are my concerns"
I respectfully decline to participate in the MOS discussion for now. Meowies ( talk) 20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The image added into this article was not added by me. It was in fact DC Fan 5 who did so and is now banned anyways. If you want the image removed so be it, it does look a little odd sitting there without an explanation.
Perhaps I was not being clear, my concerns were how both ratings would fit together. For example would we put them both in the episode list table? Would we make a seperate table? All these were addressed in my original post. At no stage did I voice an objection against the adding of Canadian ratings.
Google indexing may not be accurate but IT IS a good indication of when the websites were first created. If you have evidence that the GlobalTV Rookie Blue site existed before the 17 May 2010 then you MIGHT have some ground to say that the article is in an American POV. But the fact remains, that the material was readily available from ABC and not from Global at the time.
In resonse to the following:
The numbers from the pilot in the main article present the American success but make no mention of it being the most successful Canadian drama to date. The American POV is not just in the episode list or the infobox, but is throughout the articles. |
My response on Talk:Rookie Blue as of 09:26, 11 July 2010
The only thing you could point to is the ratings inside the receptions section, in which you have stated yourself sources about the Canadian ratings are hard to come by. I would be more than glad to add something about Canadian ratings if there were a viable source. |
I stand by what I said and you are also free to do the same. In fact it was you yourself that pointed there was a conflict in numbers with the premier between BBM and Canwest, meaning anything you or I could have written would have to be deleted anyway.
In response to the follow
ABC is not one of the production companies. Hence ABC is a foreign broadcaster. |
I never said ABC did production. I just said it was a joint venture. It interesting in the source you listed says "CANWEST AND ABC JOIN FORCES". It is odd that you ticked US for "Production Co." above and still say ABC is a foreign broadcaster. You also say "ABC bought the show afterward." After where? Sources indicate that ABC picked up the show in April 2009. Only a month or two after Global picked it up and that's because Global had a first look deal at the show. There is no reference to a commissioned pilot by either party as there was none. There was a PILOT SCRIPT but it never eventuated. Missy who was the first to be cast came into the project in June 2009. Production began mid July 2009.
In response to the follow
If you want to really pursue the joint venture, equal status.... put back that it is set in Boston, get a custom infobox allowing 2 official websites, allow 2 columns of ratings in the episode list, and everything else also be both. |
The shot about Boston is uncalled for. I never added that, neither did any of the reputable contributors. It was vandalism that was quickly corrected. About the infobox, I will start exploring options on how to such a thing. As for 2 columns: That was my first post among others. It seemed to me you just elected to go with the comprehensive table for both countries. Something I am also fine with.
For the record. I am interested in seeing both American AND Canadian material on these entries. I need to know if is this the case with you or do you stand by the following on Talk:Rookie Blue as of 22:29, 9 July 2010?
Considering it is a Canadian show i actually would love to see most American mention stricken from the article. |
Do not continue to over-sensationalise the situation. I have already addressed the picture and link on more than one occasion and proven that it was an edit made in good faith not in an American POV. I have already addressed the ratings situation in the main article twice now. Unless your willing to start going after the use of American media in the critical reception section and attempt a censor of their opinion, I urge you to stop pursuing this line of argument. A disagreement about whether the ABC constitutes as a foreign broadcaster in the infobox DOES NOT equate to the whole article being in an American POV. This is the talk page for the episode list, not the main article entry. Please re-address your argument to the situation at hand, which is the ratings. Meowies ( talk) 09:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
One other request that might have been overlooked: Is there any objection to using Canadian English on the articles? That would mean that outside of quotations and proper names that use American neighbour, honour, and the like would have the "u", dates would read as "22 July 2010" instead of "July 22, 2010", and punctuation would only appear inside of quotation marks when the source has such - a quote ending a sentence which is not the end of a sentence in the source would appear as, which he described as "the Meredith surrogate". delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 12:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Since the date format here was MDY first, and the linked articles were all created after, they should probably follow MDY rather than DMY. I'll let you fix it. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 08:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
List of Rookie Blue episodes. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Rookie Blue episodes. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The numbers in the article do not correspond to the numbers in the reference section. I don't know how to fix it. Looking at it further, the problem is with having reference 19a,b. 20 is skipped in the article, but not the reference section.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.66.93 ( talk) 22:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not have a problem with adding Canadian Ratings to the table but here are my concerns:
1. It is not common to see BOTH US and Canadian Ratings in the table and makes the table seem somewhat packed.
2. Replacing the US Ratings with Canadian presents the following problem:
3. Replacing the US Ratings with Canadians BUT adding a separate and comprehensive table for US Ratings presents the following problem:
4. Adding a separate and comprehensive table for Canadian Ratings presents the following problem:
5. Removal of US Ratings from table and adding a separate comprehensive table for both US and Canadian Ratings (like in the Flashpoint entry) presents the following problem:
Weekly rankings can be found here:
Ep 1:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/29/tv-ratings-top-25-americas-got-talent-wipeout-hells-kitchen-crowd-the-top-of-weeks-ratings/55620
Ep 2:
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/07/07/tv-ratings-top-25-americas-got-talent-bachelorette-wipeout-fill-the-top-of-the-rankings/56155
The next set of rankings should be available on tues possibly on wed.
Having said all this. Rankings are practically useless. You can easily discern where a show came given enough research (albeit a bit tedious) but rankings don't usually mean anything unless your talking about where a show finished at the end of its season against others. Again, its odd to have a comprehensive list that shows something as "meaningless" as rankings without showing something like household ratings. Consider splitting the tables so its not so packed and secondly, is it necessary to have Canadian ratings in the episode list? Its obviously redundant at this point. Meowies ( talk) 03:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for my late reply as I have been a little busy of late. In any case, perhaps I was not being clear to begin with. Neither US or Canadian ratings should appear on the episode list if the comprehensive table is to house both already. Like I said its just redundant. As for rankings providing context. That's arguable. Your talking about two totally different countries, and your trying to compare them on same level which makes it even more strange, given you never really wanted the US ratings to start with. I'm quite certain anyone who sees the numbers (total viewers) will know its because of a population difference. Not to sound harsh, but I really don't think your giving people enough credit. In regards to the readability of the table, maybe I am just a minimalist or maybe its the font or both, I'm not sure, but I will reserve final judgement until I see it when its close to completion. In regards to the the conflicting ratings. There is also another conflict, in which one of references from Canwest said the premier was at 1.8mil [2]. As a result of multiple conflicts there would also be naturally a conflict with the 18-49 share. On a related manner I will suspend the Canadian ratings on the main article page. I will leave a note explaining a conflict. Meowies ( talk) 03:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll clear the air here before I continue upon the current situation.
I feel like I am being painted as the bad guy here, and that my editing and/or the editing of others is considered to be an American POV. I quote Deliriousandlost:
Yet it was apparently Americans who started this article. |
For the record. Yes I started this article. No I am not American. Such accusations that I am American and therefore my stance at maintaining the American ratings is of a POV nature are not only unfounded but unfair.
Secondly in regards to the link and image. This is no place to discuss such an issue here to begin with, and bringing it up in this situation is simply adding fuel to the fire. Furthermore it is simply a slap in the face given that just hours prior to your post I had re-opened dialogue asking for help choosing 1 of 4 new images for the infobox located here: Talk:Rookie Blue#New_Image. Since you have brought this up I have no choice but to defend myself and the editors involved about violations of NPOV. The items in question were added in this edit: [5] at 23:08, 17 May 2010. At the time of the edit the only available material was from the ABC. I refer you to the following two links. The first will show that the ABC Rookie Blue website was indexed on the 28 Apr 2010. The second link will show that the GlobalTV Rookie Blue website was indexed on the 12 Jun 2010. Hell I will even used google.ca:
ABC:
Global:
As you can see Logical_Fuzz did no wrong as the material from Global was not available to him/her till nearly a month later. As far as I know Logical_Fuzz is in the North American region. Specifically what nationality I am unsure of, but his/her edits were made in good faith and not in an American POV. Any further allegations that state me or other editors that have contributed to this article or the main article have violated NPOV, without proper proof backing those allegations; will not be met with too kindly.
Third. I was the one who added that is was a Canadian police drama (evidence here: [6]) as I accept it is a mainly a Canadian production. If I wanted to I could easily say it was a Canadian-American production. This should further dispel any such allegations that I am in violation of NPOV.
Now on with what I am to say. As I said I accept that this is mainly a Canadian Production. The page says Canadian but it also says the following:
The series is a joint venture between Canwest Broadcasting and ABC, and produced by E1 Entertainment. |
Given that Canwest also put out a joint announcement with the ABC ( [7]) renewing Rookie Blue for a second season, I think it is fair to say a joint venture doesn't mean that anything American immediately takes a back seat. In regards to the "Do not add foreign broadcasters here" comment. I am confused. Are you suggesting we remove the ABC as the original channel? Or have you just read it wrong and trying to argue that the picture and website don't below because it says "Do not add foreign broadcasters here"?
Read the first sentence of this whole exchange.
"I do not have a problem with adding Canadian Ratings to the table but here are my concerns"
I respectfully decline to participate in the MOS discussion for now. Meowies ( talk) 20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The image added into this article was not added by me. It was in fact DC Fan 5 who did so and is now banned anyways. If you want the image removed so be it, it does look a little odd sitting there without an explanation.
Perhaps I was not being clear, my concerns were how both ratings would fit together. For example would we put them both in the episode list table? Would we make a seperate table? All these were addressed in my original post. At no stage did I voice an objection against the adding of Canadian ratings.
Google indexing may not be accurate but IT IS a good indication of when the websites were first created. If you have evidence that the GlobalTV Rookie Blue site existed before the 17 May 2010 then you MIGHT have some ground to say that the article is in an American POV. But the fact remains, that the material was readily available from ABC and not from Global at the time.
In resonse to the following:
The numbers from the pilot in the main article present the American success but make no mention of it being the most successful Canadian drama to date. The American POV is not just in the episode list or the infobox, but is throughout the articles. |
My response on Talk:Rookie Blue as of 09:26, 11 July 2010
The only thing you could point to is the ratings inside the receptions section, in which you have stated yourself sources about the Canadian ratings are hard to come by. I would be more than glad to add something about Canadian ratings if there were a viable source. |
I stand by what I said and you are also free to do the same. In fact it was you yourself that pointed there was a conflict in numbers with the premier between BBM and Canwest, meaning anything you or I could have written would have to be deleted anyway.
In response to the follow
ABC is not one of the production companies. Hence ABC is a foreign broadcaster. |
I never said ABC did production. I just said it was a joint venture. It interesting in the source you listed says "CANWEST AND ABC JOIN FORCES". It is odd that you ticked US for "Production Co." above and still say ABC is a foreign broadcaster. You also say "ABC bought the show afterward." After where? Sources indicate that ABC picked up the show in April 2009. Only a month or two after Global picked it up and that's because Global had a first look deal at the show. There is no reference to a commissioned pilot by either party as there was none. There was a PILOT SCRIPT but it never eventuated. Missy who was the first to be cast came into the project in June 2009. Production began mid July 2009.
In response to the follow
If you want to really pursue the joint venture, equal status.... put back that it is set in Boston, get a custom infobox allowing 2 official websites, allow 2 columns of ratings in the episode list, and everything else also be both. |
The shot about Boston is uncalled for. I never added that, neither did any of the reputable contributors. It was vandalism that was quickly corrected. About the infobox, I will start exploring options on how to such a thing. As for 2 columns: That was my first post among others. It seemed to me you just elected to go with the comprehensive table for both countries. Something I am also fine with.
For the record. I am interested in seeing both American AND Canadian material on these entries. I need to know if is this the case with you or do you stand by the following on Talk:Rookie Blue as of 22:29, 9 July 2010?
Considering it is a Canadian show i actually would love to see most American mention stricken from the article. |
Do not continue to over-sensationalise the situation. I have already addressed the picture and link on more than one occasion and proven that it was an edit made in good faith not in an American POV. I have already addressed the ratings situation in the main article twice now. Unless your willing to start going after the use of American media in the critical reception section and attempt a censor of their opinion, I urge you to stop pursuing this line of argument. A disagreement about whether the ABC constitutes as a foreign broadcaster in the infobox DOES NOT equate to the whole article being in an American POV. This is the talk page for the episode list, not the main article entry. Please re-address your argument to the situation at hand, which is the ratings. Meowies ( talk) 09:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
One other request that might have been overlooked: Is there any objection to using Canadian English on the articles? That would mean that outside of quotations and proper names that use American neighbour, honour, and the like would have the "u", dates would read as "22 July 2010" instead of "July 22, 2010", and punctuation would only appear inside of quotation marks when the source has such - a quote ending a sentence which is not the end of a sentence in the source would appear as, which he described as "the Meredith surrogate". delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 12:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Since the date format here was MDY first, and the linked articles were all created after, they should probably follow MDY rather than DMY. I'll let you fix it. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 08:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
List of Rookie Blue episodes. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Rookie Blue episodes. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)