![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
There was also some kind of documentary tie-in program[me], the title of which I don't recall. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Why have we been adding US viewers to a series that's Canadian-Irish? Only viewers from the originating country should be added. Alex| The| Whovian 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how it doesn't benefit the table by having them here. Following the standard in The Walking Dead's web series. — Artmanha ( talk) 00:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
No. overall |
No. in season | Title | Directed by | Written by | Original air date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | "Rites of Passage" | Johan Renck | Michael Hirst | March 3, 2013 | |
Ragnar and his brother, etc |
Title
field is the only one that is too wide, which is preferable to having multiple columns far too wide. All of the others are more conventional in width. Ideally, the table shouldn't be that wide but we need to fit in the episode summaries. Of course, that's not necessary on this page, and it is possible to change the transcluded width so that all fields line up and are only as wide as necessary. See
List of Hell's Kitchen episodes, where all of the season articles use 100% wide columns, while the trancluded tables are sized so that the fields all line up, which was necessary because of the different content in each season. That would enable the inclusion of the webisode runtimes, which is not possible with the current method. It would allay Alex's concerns that the runtimes "push the columns out of alignment with the others", and we could even make the Title
field only as wide as it need be. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
02:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Title
field, and consequently the width of the table (tables should only be as wide as the need to be). It is still wide enough for any existing episode titles, and I've left some extra in case a longer title comes up. I've also reinstated the runtimes but with the code adjustments, these don't push any columns out of alignment as they did before. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
16:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)I am 100% against these recent changes. I have never seen a script series that has an episode table that isn't 100% wide. Is there any Wikipedia policy or guideline that states "tables should only be as wide as they need to be"? What "makes the table look ugly" is having them like this. What I meant above was that by having a table that doesn't require widths, it would evenly divide along themselves, like this:
No. overall |
No. in season | Title | Directed by | Written by | Original air date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | "Rites of Passage" | Johan Renck | Michael Hirst | March 3, 2013 | |
Ragnar and his brother, etc |
So having one wide column and the others only as wide as they need is incompatible to what Wikipedia automatically does when there aren't set widths. Thanks — Artmanha ( talk) 17:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
No. overall |
No. in season |
Title | Directed by | Written by | Original air date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | "Rites of Passage" | Johan Renck | Michael Hirst | March 3, 2013 | |
Ragnar and his brother, etc. |
Normally, a cell takes up the space it needs to display the content. [1] Tables contain data and whitespace just makes tables a lot bigger than they need to be. It's generally considered to be bad practice to force whitespace into a table, and has been for at least the past 36 years that I've been working with spreadsheets (which are just tables). There is actually no consensus that tables have to be 100% wide, and in many articles they are not. We just tend to do it in episode lists because there is so much data that it fills the width anyway. We did at one stage reduce the size to 99% because it was causing issues on mobile devices. I don't understand you being "100%" against the changes. You are the one who wanted the runtimes in the first place. One of the concerns about them had by Alex was that the extra column forced others to the left and forced the tables to be out of alignment. The current code fixes that. Without that, you can't have the runtimes. The table example that you've used is one of those "bad practice" tables that I spoke of. There is far too much whitespace. Readers shouldn't have to scroll across the page to find information. You can't seriously argue that a table with fields that are 15-20 times wider than the data in the fields aren't ugly? It's far better to have one over-size field than 6 over-size fields. You'll note that, at List of Teen Wolf episodes#Specials the title field is set to 67% to enable column alignment. That's wider then the field was set to in the season articles for this series. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
This is to guide the structure and normalize the standard of articles dealing with the Television medium and television series or other forms of episodic programs. — Artmanha ( talk) 20:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
My opinion is that we should add the running time to the webisodes. There is actually no wide consensus to use {{ episode table}} at all. Again, it's just something we do because it's a good template. There is certainly no consensus to stick with 100% and certainly not at this article. In fact it's not possible to use 100% at many articles, which is why
|total_width=
exists. The subject is clearly still under discussion and I only added the new code after neither you nor Alex opposed my suggestion (I waited over a day while you both made multiple edits at multiple articles). The quote you've included is not a mandated principle. Note that it only says "to guide". We have to use common sense and apply the guidelines of MOS:TV (the the project page) on a case by case basis. This is how we have done it for the 9 years that I've been editing TV articles. As for the Teen Wolf specials, the point is that you're forcing a wide column rather than letting the columns "even themselves out". That's exactly what my code did, so to argue against it is not logical. Note that I've suggested we don't bother including writes and directors for the webisodes at all, and Alex has suggested we can eliminate the writers column in the season articles for the same reason. That will result in in some very wide columns. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
04:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
There is actually no wide consensus to use {{ episode table}} at all.but yet I've never seen an episode table for a script series such as Vikings with a table with other than 100%, 99% or even 101%, and these adjustments are always to better fit the information, when it is too long. Mostly other tables (not episodes one) use tables with other width (e.g.: ratings tables). And my quotation is as you stated, to guide. But I see no reason other than your will to not follow this guide. Yes, we have been applying the MOS:TV on a case by case basis, yet none of our fellow editors (even more experienced than you, which is a hard thing to find here) have ever wanted to do it on episode lists articles for scripted series. As for the Teen Wolf table, it wasn't me who did it like that, and it is that wide because and only because there aren't columns for writers and directors, and the editor who did it like that wanted to adjust the
|airdate=
with the series' ones. I don't think we should eliminate any of those columns on Vikings. As for having one wide column and the other ones adjusted, I'm not against if it isn't too adjusted, leaving a little more space to the other columns as well. Also we could try to add other parameters such as |prodcode=
or |viewers=
. Thank you — Artmanha (
talk)
12:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Since we're talking about them, it should be noted that the column widths were arbitrarily altered when Alex removed the viewer figures. The values for the old and new widths are shown in the following table:
Parameter | Old width | New width |
---|---|---|
overall | 6 | 6 |
season | 6 | 6 |
title | 18 | 26 |
director | 20 | 20 |
writer | 20 | 20 |
airdate | 17 | 22 |
viewers | 13 | N/A |
The title and the airdate were both made wider. I can see value in increasing the width of the title column, but there is no value in increasing the width of the airdate column, and I'm still waiting for some justification why all the columns need to be so wide. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Parameter | Old width | New width |
---|---|---|
overall | 6 | 6 |
season | 6 | 6 |
title | 18 | 26 |
director | 20 | 20 |
writer | 20 | 20 |
airdate | 17 | 22 |
viewers | 13 | N/A |
No. overall |
No. in season | Title | Directed by | Written by | Original air date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | "Rites of Passage" | Johan Renck | Michael Hirst | March 3, 2013 | |
Ragnar and his brother, etc |
No. overall |
No. in season |
Title | Directed By | Written By | Original air date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | Rites of Passage | Johan Renck | Michael Hirst | March 3, 2013 | |
Ragnar and his brother, etc |
ProdCode
field header with "
Prod." because "Production" was far wider than most production codes. We've also done it in the episode number fields, relacing "Number" with
No.. Why here do we seem to want ugly whitespace? I have a table here printed on
B0 paper. If it was formatted the way these tables are, it'd probably span the Pacific Ocean. As for the runtimes, they're all different so it's actually a lot harder to describe them adequately in the prose than the writer and director, which we seem happy to have in the table. We need some consistency here. If we're not going to include the runtimes, we should get rid of the writer and director as well. They can be replaced by "All webisodes were written by
Sam Meikle and directed by Lucas Taylor." --
AussieLegend (
✉)
17:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
|Aux4=
, per the example below.
Alex|The|Whovian
?
04:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
No. overall |
No. in season | Title | Directed by | Written by | Original air date | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | "Rites of Passage" | Johan Renck | Michael Hirst | March 3, 2013 | TBA | |
Ragnar and his brother, etc |
|aux4=
space with information such as |featurecharacters=
, |prodcode=
, |viewers=
(Canadian or Irish), etc. if available — Artmanha (
talk)
12:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
|featurecharacters=
isn't a valid paramater, but there really does need to be a column for Canadian viewers.
Alex|The|Whovian
?
12:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
|aux2=
or |aux4=
combined with |aux4T=
Feature character(s) (e.g.:
List of Orange Is the New Black episodes and
List of Lost episodes). Remembering that I've made only a suggestion of those parameters, in case they are available — Artmanha (
talk)
16:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
|prodcode=
) for them at all. — Artmanha (
talk)
17:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't need to pretend you don't know something to prove the point.- The point is that you haven't demonstrated how production codes are important here. I don't think they are and you haven't made any attempt to convince anyone otherwise.
If we were to follow you and don't add production codes because "They certainly don't seem important at all here", we wouldn't need to have production codes in essentially every article that displays them.- That's true. They don't usually serve any purpose. When episodes are aired out of sequence and that affects a storyline, they do prove useful, but otherwise...
You can further read about their purpose here- I know the purpose of production codes but that doesn't explain why we need to list them here.
How are production codes not relevant?- How are they relevant? I can't see how production codes would be helpful here, and you won't explain why you think they are. Your entire argument seems to be "we should include them because"
If they weren't, there wouldn't be a parameter- Just because a parameter exists doesn't mean it has to be used. We regularly delete "RTitle" form episode lists and "Aux1-4" are often not used. Do you even realise we have an important parameter called
MainList
that is rarely used. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
14:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Can I also ask, Aussie, why you deleted the references for the upcoming episodes when you implemented the change of format? Alex|The|Whovian ? 13:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I do believe that an epilogue episode was released that follows on from the final webisode. You can watch it on youtube. But I can't find any information on it. Supadog —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Vikings 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) 02:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi / Alex/ 21, I saw that you deleted the US ratings I've added, with the reason that this isn't a US TV show. However, this TV show did premiere on March 3, 2013, in Canada and the United States. So, even if it isn't produced by Americans, I don't think it's a good idea to delete the US ratings. I understand that you don't want to add every rating of each country here, but is there a consensus regarding this issue? If there is could you link to it please? Because with musicians you do try to add how well a single or an album performed in each country.
My second remark would be that this show was filmed in Ireland and premiered in Canada (and the US). So, should the ratings of both Canada and Ireland be included in this case? And do you know which sources provide this information? From what I've seen, the Canadian ratings are only available if you pay for them. And I couldn't find the Irish ratings. That's the second reason why I would want to keep the US ratings. MrUnoDosTres ( talk) 23:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Ratings should only be included from the program's country of origin or where it debuts, unless viewership is particularly notable in another territory and can be reliably sourced.Why is it particular notable in the US? It's not. If you have Irish and Canadian ratings, then by all means. But unless they are available, then we don't add them, other countries or not. -- / Alex/ 21 06:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
There was also some kind of documentary tie-in program[me], the title of which I don't recall. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Why have we been adding US viewers to a series that's Canadian-Irish? Only viewers from the originating country should be added. Alex| The| Whovian 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how it doesn't benefit the table by having them here. Following the standard in The Walking Dead's web series. — Artmanha ( talk) 00:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
No. overall |
No. in season | Title | Directed by | Written by | Original air date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | "Rites of Passage" | Johan Renck | Michael Hirst | March 3, 2013 | |
Ragnar and his brother, etc |
Title
field is the only one that is too wide, which is preferable to having multiple columns far too wide. All of the others are more conventional in width. Ideally, the table shouldn't be that wide but we need to fit in the episode summaries. Of course, that's not necessary on this page, and it is possible to change the transcluded width so that all fields line up and are only as wide as necessary. See
List of Hell's Kitchen episodes, where all of the season articles use 100% wide columns, while the trancluded tables are sized so that the fields all line up, which was necessary because of the different content in each season. That would enable the inclusion of the webisode runtimes, which is not possible with the current method. It would allay Alex's concerns that the runtimes "push the columns out of alignment with the others", and we could even make the Title
field only as wide as it need be. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
02:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Title
field, and consequently the width of the table (tables should only be as wide as the need to be). It is still wide enough for any existing episode titles, and I've left some extra in case a longer title comes up. I've also reinstated the runtimes but with the code adjustments, these don't push any columns out of alignment as they did before. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
16:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)I am 100% against these recent changes. I have never seen a script series that has an episode table that isn't 100% wide. Is there any Wikipedia policy or guideline that states "tables should only be as wide as they need to be"? What "makes the table look ugly" is having them like this. What I meant above was that by having a table that doesn't require widths, it would evenly divide along themselves, like this:
No. overall |
No. in season | Title | Directed by | Written by | Original air date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | "Rites of Passage" | Johan Renck | Michael Hirst | March 3, 2013 | |
Ragnar and his brother, etc |
So having one wide column and the others only as wide as they need is incompatible to what Wikipedia automatically does when there aren't set widths. Thanks — Artmanha ( talk) 17:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
No. overall |
No. in season |
Title | Directed by | Written by | Original air date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | "Rites of Passage" | Johan Renck | Michael Hirst | March 3, 2013 | |
Ragnar and his brother, etc. |
Normally, a cell takes up the space it needs to display the content. [1] Tables contain data and whitespace just makes tables a lot bigger than they need to be. It's generally considered to be bad practice to force whitespace into a table, and has been for at least the past 36 years that I've been working with spreadsheets (which are just tables). There is actually no consensus that tables have to be 100% wide, and in many articles they are not. We just tend to do it in episode lists because there is so much data that it fills the width anyway. We did at one stage reduce the size to 99% because it was causing issues on mobile devices. I don't understand you being "100%" against the changes. You are the one who wanted the runtimes in the first place. One of the concerns about them had by Alex was that the extra column forced others to the left and forced the tables to be out of alignment. The current code fixes that. Without that, you can't have the runtimes. The table example that you've used is one of those "bad practice" tables that I spoke of. There is far too much whitespace. Readers shouldn't have to scroll across the page to find information. You can't seriously argue that a table with fields that are 15-20 times wider than the data in the fields aren't ugly? It's far better to have one over-size field than 6 over-size fields. You'll note that, at List of Teen Wolf episodes#Specials the title field is set to 67% to enable column alignment. That's wider then the field was set to in the season articles for this series. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
This is to guide the structure and normalize the standard of articles dealing with the Television medium and television series or other forms of episodic programs. — Artmanha ( talk) 20:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
My opinion is that we should add the running time to the webisodes. There is actually no wide consensus to use {{ episode table}} at all. Again, it's just something we do because it's a good template. There is certainly no consensus to stick with 100% and certainly not at this article. In fact it's not possible to use 100% at many articles, which is why
|total_width=
exists. The subject is clearly still under discussion and I only added the new code after neither you nor Alex opposed my suggestion (I waited over a day while you both made multiple edits at multiple articles). The quote you've included is not a mandated principle. Note that it only says "to guide". We have to use common sense and apply the guidelines of MOS:TV (the the project page) on a case by case basis. This is how we have done it for the 9 years that I've been editing TV articles. As for the Teen Wolf specials, the point is that you're forcing a wide column rather than letting the columns "even themselves out". That's exactly what my code did, so to argue against it is not logical. Note that I've suggested we don't bother including writes and directors for the webisodes at all, and Alex has suggested we can eliminate the writers column in the season articles for the same reason. That will result in in some very wide columns. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
04:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
There is actually no wide consensus to use {{ episode table}} at all.but yet I've never seen an episode table for a script series such as Vikings with a table with other than 100%, 99% or even 101%, and these adjustments are always to better fit the information, when it is too long. Mostly other tables (not episodes one) use tables with other width (e.g.: ratings tables). And my quotation is as you stated, to guide. But I see no reason other than your will to not follow this guide. Yes, we have been applying the MOS:TV on a case by case basis, yet none of our fellow editors (even more experienced than you, which is a hard thing to find here) have ever wanted to do it on episode lists articles for scripted series. As for the Teen Wolf table, it wasn't me who did it like that, and it is that wide because and only because there aren't columns for writers and directors, and the editor who did it like that wanted to adjust the
|airdate=
with the series' ones. I don't think we should eliminate any of those columns on Vikings. As for having one wide column and the other ones adjusted, I'm not against if it isn't too adjusted, leaving a little more space to the other columns as well. Also we could try to add other parameters such as |prodcode=
or |viewers=
. Thank you — Artmanha (
talk)
12:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Since we're talking about them, it should be noted that the column widths were arbitrarily altered when Alex removed the viewer figures. The values for the old and new widths are shown in the following table:
Parameter | Old width | New width |
---|---|---|
overall | 6 | 6 |
season | 6 | 6 |
title | 18 | 26 |
director | 20 | 20 |
writer | 20 | 20 |
airdate | 17 | 22 |
viewers | 13 | N/A |
The title and the airdate were both made wider. I can see value in increasing the width of the title column, but there is no value in increasing the width of the airdate column, and I'm still waiting for some justification why all the columns need to be so wide. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Parameter | Old width | New width |
---|---|---|
overall | 6 | 6 |
season | 6 | 6 |
title | 18 | 26 |
director | 20 | 20 |
writer | 20 | 20 |
airdate | 17 | 22 |
viewers | 13 | N/A |
No. overall |
No. in season | Title | Directed by | Written by | Original air date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | "Rites of Passage" | Johan Renck | Michael Hirst | March 3, 2013 | |
Ragnar and his brother, etc |
No. overall |
No. in season |
Title | Directed By | Written By | Original air date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | Rites of Passage | Johan Renck | Michael Hirst | March 3, 2013 | |
Ragnar and his brother, etc |
ProdCode
field header with "
Prod." because "Production" was far wider than most production codes. We've also done it in the episode number fields, relacing "Number" with
No.. Why here do we seem to want ugly whitespace? I have a table here printed on
B0 paper. If it was formatted the way these tables are, it'd probably span the Pacific Ocean. As for the runtimes, they're all different so it's actually a lot harder to describe them adequately in the prose than the writer and director, which we seem happy to have in the table. We need some consistency here. If we're not going to include the runtimes, we should get rid of the writer and director as well. They can be replaced by "All webisodes were written by
Sam Meikle and directed by Lucas Taylor." --
AussieLegend (
✉)
17:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
|Aux4=
, per the example below.
Alex|The|Whovian
?
04:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
No. overall |
No. in season | Title | Directed by | Written by | Original air date | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 | "Rites of Passage" | Johan Renck | Michael Hirst | March 3, 2013 | TBA | |
Ragnar and his brother, etc |
|aux4=
space with information such as |featurecharacters=
, |prodcode=
, |viewers=
(Canadian or Irish), etc. if available — Artmanha (
talk)
12:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
|featurecharacters=
isn't a valid paramater, but there really does need to be a column for Canadian viewers.
Alex|The|Whovian
?
12:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
|aux2=
or |aux4=
combined with |aux4T=
Feature character(s) (e.g.:
List of Orange Is the New Black episodes and
List of Lost episodes). Remembering that I've made only a suggestion of those parameters, in case they are available — Artmanha (
talk)
16:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
|prodcode=
) for them at all. — Artmanha (
talk)
17:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't need to pretend you don't know something to prove the point.- The point is that you haven't demonstrated how production codes are important here. I don't think they are and you haven't made any attempt to convince anyone otherwise.
If we were to follow you and don't add production codes because "They certainly don't seem important at all here", we wouldn't need to have production codes in essentially every article that displays them.- That's true. They don't usually serve any purpose. When episodes are aired out of sequence and that affects a storyline, they do prove useful, but otherwise...
You can further read about their purpose here- I know the purpose of production codes but that doesn't explain why we need to list them here.
How are production codes not relevant?- How are they relevant? I can't see how production codes would be helpful here, and you won't explain why you think they are. Your entire argument seems to be "we should include them because"
If they weren't, there wouldn't be a parameter- Just because a parameter exists doesn't mean it has to be used. We regularly delete "RTitle" form episode lists and "Aux1-4" are often not used. Do you even realise we have an important parameter called
MainList
that is rarely used. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
14:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Can I also ask, Aussie, why you deleted the references for the upcoming episodes when you implemented the change of format? Alex|The|Whovian ? 13:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I do believe that an epilogue episode was released that follows on from the final webisode. You can watch it on youtube. But I can't find any information on it. Supadog —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Vikings 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) 02:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi / Alex/ 21, I saw that you deleted the US ratings I've added, with the reason that this isn't a US TV show. However, this TV show did premiere on March 3, 2013, in Canada and the United States. So, even if it isn't produced by Americans, I don't think it's a good idea to delete the US ratings. I understand that you don't want to add every rating of each country here, but is there a consensus regarding this issue? If there is could you link to it please? Because with musicians you do try to add how well a single or an album performed in each country.
My second remark would be that this show was filmed in Ireland and premiered in Canada (and the US). So, should the ratings of both Canada and Ireland be included in this case? And do you know which sources provide this information? From what I've seen, the Canadian ratings are only available if you pay for them. And I couldn't find the Irish ratings. That's the second reason why I would want to keep the US ratings. MrUnoDosTres ( talk) 23:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Ratings should only be included from the program's country of origin or where it debuts, unless viewership is particularly notable in another territory and can be reliably sourced.Why is it particular notable in the US? It's not. If you have Irish and Canadian ratings, then by all means. But unless they are available, then we don't add them, other countries or not. -- / Alex/ 21 06:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)