This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Suits (American TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 21 October 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Suits. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
"Avg. 18-49 ratings" is the column heading, without any explanation whatsoever. Is that a demographic (18-49 year olds)? The sample size (in thousands)? And are scores over 1 good and below 1 bad? How high or low can the scores go anyway? The scores go down dramatically from season to season - does that mean the show was tanking I suppose those scores are used elsewhere, so a link to a page explaining them would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A45C:FF55:1:A576:D71E:5C9B:D60C ( talk) 10:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
If you go to the USA website and watch the Harvey Specter interview video ( http://video.usanetwork.com/series/suits/behind_the_scenes_5/meet-harvey-specter/v1342199), the name of the firm (Pearson Hardman) can be seen on the wall. comment added by Andrew.seier ( talk • contribs)
Woodensuperman and others: Just wanting to raise a question about the page move from Suits (TV series) to Suits (U.S. TV series). I don't understand why it was moved, as this is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and it affects a large number of subsidiary pages, and it would have been good to see some discussion here before moving. With a hugely popular US show remade in Korea, this would seem more similar for example to Criminal Minds and Criminal Minds (South Korean TV series) than say The Office, The Office (UK TV series) and The Office (U.S. TV series). Thanks, Melcous ( talk) 21:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Any objections to making separate articles for the main characters as List of Suits Characters is getting large. Also posted in their talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliceSheep99 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I have removed this article from Category:Television series set in the 2010s. As is noted on the category page, this category is only for "Television shows whose events take place in the 2010s but which were made before that decade." As Suits was made in the 2010s it should not be included in the category. Dunarc ( talk) 20:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Tough call here as the opposers do clearly have the numbers, however the supporters do have a strong policy claim. For said supporters, there was a relatively convincing argument of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on pageviews and WP:PLURAL. However, the oppose column pointed out potential long-term significance of the singular Suit and related WP:PRECISION. Additionally WP:ASTONISH was raised as a concern by those in opposition. It was pointed out that ASTONISH is an essay not a policy, though it was also noted that WP:TITLEPTM makes references to ASTONISH. All of this considered, the nom and supporters were successful in arguing that the proposed move meets WP:PT1, but I find that the long-term significance concerns of the opposers are based in WP:PT2 rendering the PTOPIC argument a nonfactor. In regards to the PLURAL argument, I also find that ASTONISH (supported in policy by TITLEPTM) and PRECISE provide a stronger case than PLURAL. ( closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 ( talk) ★ 04:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PLURAL. The page views are overwhelmingly in favor of the American TV series being the primary topic for Suits: the daily average page views for this page is 9,877 out of a total of 10,158 page views for this page, the Korean series, the album and the dab page. That's 97%. If that's not "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined", then nothing is. It's possible that some small percentage of users searching with "Suits" might be looking for Suit, but the total number of average daily views there is also miniscule, 460 compare to this page's 9,877, so that's obviously insignificant for primary topic determination. And WP:PLURAL explicitly allows use of the plural form for a different article than the singular form in cases like this. The bottom line is that anyone searching with "suits" is almost certainly looking for this article; that's primary topic by definition. В²C ☎ 03:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Suits (American TV series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 21 October 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Suits. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
"Avg. 18-49 ratings" is the column heading, without any explanation whatsoever. Is that a demographic (18-49 year olds)? The sample size (in thousands)? And are scores over 1 good and below 1 bad? How high or low can the scores go anyway? The scores go down dramatically from season to season - does that mean the show was tanking I suppose those scores are used elsewhere, so a link to a page explaining them would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A45C:FF55:1:A576:D71E:5C9B:D60C ( talk) 10:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
If you go to the USA website and watch the Harvey Specter interview video ( http://video.usanetwork.com/series/suits/behind_the_scenes_5/meet-harvey-specter/v1342199), the name of the firm (Pearson Hardman) can be seen on the wall. comment added by Andrew.seier ( talk • contribs)
Woodensuperman and others: Just wanting to raise a question about the page move from Suits (TV series) to Suits (U.S. TV series). I don't understand why it was moved, as this is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and it affects a large number of subsidiary pages, and it would have been good to see some discussion here before moving. With a hugely popular US show remade in Korea, this would seem more similar for example to Criminal Minds and Criminal Minds (South Korean TV series) than say The Office, The Office (UK TV series) and The Office (U.S. TV series). Thanks, Melcous ( talk) 21:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Any objections to making separate articles for the main characters as List of Suits Characters is getting large. Also posted in their talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliceSheep99 ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I have removed this article from Category:Television series set in the 2010s. As is noted on the category page, this category is only for "Television shows whose events take place in the 2010s but which were made before that decade." As Suits was made in the 2010s it should not be included in the category. Dunarc ( talk) 20:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Tough call here as the opposers do clearly have the numbers, however the supporters do have a strong policy claim. For said supporters, there was a relatively convincing argument of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on pageviews and WP:PLURAL. However, the oppose column pointed out potential long-term significance of the singular Suit and related WP:PRECISION. Additionally WP:ASTONISH was raised as a concern by those in opposition. It was pointed out that ASTONISH is an essay not a policy, though it was also noted that WP:TITLEPTM makes references to ASTONISH. All of this considered, the nom and supporters were successful in arguing that the proposed move meets WP:PT1, but I find that the long-term significance concerns of the opposers are based in WP:PT2 rendering the PTOPIC argument a nonfactor. In regards to the PLURAL argument, I also find that ASTONISH (supported in policy by TITLEPTM) and PRECISE provide a stronger case than PLURAL. ( closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 ( talk) ★ 04:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
– Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PLURAL. The page views are overwhelmingly in favor of the American TV series being the primary topic for Suits: the daily average page views for this page is 9,877 out of a total of 10,158 page views for this page, the Korean series, the album and the dab page. That's 97%. If that's not "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined", then nothing is. It's possible that some small percentage of users searching with "Suits" might be looking for Suit, but the total number of average daily views there is also miniscule, 460 compare to this page's 9,877, so that's obviously insignificant for primary topic determination. And WP:PLURAL explicitly allows use of the plural form for a different article than the singular form in cases like this. The bottom line is that anyone searching with "suits" is almost certainly looking for this article; that's primary topic by definition. В²C ☎ 03:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)