Talk:Blunt Talk

International broadcasters

Article needs a list of where (if anywhere) it is showing outside the US. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to add it yourself if you can find reliable sources. It's not always up to us registered editors. Alex|The|Whovian 01:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"Ratings" section

I have removed the Ratings section because other than the 18–49 viewers parameter in the sizable tables, the episode number, title, air dates, and total viewers can be found in the regular episode list section. While in some cases I believe ratings sections may be valuable, in this particular series with relatively small viewerships, the "0.05," "0.07," etc. data figures do not mean anything to a general readership and do not contribute to or expand a reader's understanding of the series. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Not everything in an article is solely to benefit the reader. Does it provide information that is related to the series? Yes. Hence, it is available to be added to the article. If you want to put the ratings into the episode table and then remove them, then by all means. These are simply personal views, and not backed up by any sort of guideline or policy. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"Not everything in an article is solely to benefit the reader." That's a pretty bizarre statement. And definitely goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is absolutely solely to benefit readers. It's not an indiscriminate collection of information, and certainly listing minor ratings info without sufficient context goes against the section on excessive listings of statistics, which is policy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree with Wikipedical here. 18-49 demo ratings are trivial and meaningless to the average reader. And we're talking about numbers that are almost literally zero (seriously, 0.04 for example). My reasoning is always, if a reader wants more ratings statistics beyond the viewership numbers, they can click the reference. We don't need to add everything single little piece of ratings stats just because it's published by TV by the Numbers or Showbuzz Daily, which are websites that are dedicated to that. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here along with WP:NOTSTATS. This is a larger issue among the TV project, but I digress. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if there is a need to include the 18-49 demographic, there is no need for a completely separate table that duplicates content already in the episode table. The 18-49 figures can be included in the episode table using |Aux4=. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Since when have demographics been included in episode tables? If they were meant to be added, they would have their own defined parameter. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

They used to be included all the time. Some were quite extensive. They used the "Aux" parameters but it was a bit mixed up. Viewer figures normally used Aux4, while articles that included other demographics used Aux2 and Aux3, so the formatting was not consistent. We revamped {{Episode list}} in 2012 for MOS:ACCESS compatibility and, since there were a lot of editors involved, we also made some other changes. One of these was the addition of the "Viewers" field, which didn't exist until then, although it had been proposed. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I definitely do not support adding the 18–49 demographic to episode list tables. That really only matter to advertisers, which Starz does not have, and a figure like "0.03" has absolutely no meaning to a general readership. I still happen to agree with User:Drovethrughosts when this was discussed at Talk:List of Rectify episodes#18-49 rating.

But regarding the original discussion at hand, I am pleased that you User:AussieLegend also believe there's no need for a separate table with mostly duplicated content. I believe the 18–49 info here is expendable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC) -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the point of my post was that the only content in the ratings table that is not already in the episode table is the 18-49 demographics. I am not advocating keeping that data, in fact I have no opinion on it, but it certainly doesn't require a whole table to support it. If consensus were to keep it, it can be included in the episode table, as it used to be in the old days. If consensus is that the data is not required, it can simply be deleted along with the table. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"They used to be included all the time". Used to be. So there's nothing supporting the inclusion of it in the episode table. And back to the start, there's no policy, guideline or wider consensus blocking the data from being included here; all it is is personal view. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not just personal views, as ratings tables violate WP:NOTSTATS, especially when it comes to a show like Blunt Talk, with marginal numbers like 0.03 and 0.05. This just happens to be an excessive case where two large redundant tables have been created for the sake of listing statistics that do not benefit the general reader. So far in this discussion three users do not support tables to list that information. -- Wikipedical (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wikipedical: Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOTVOTE. Wikipedia discussions are not a place for voting for and again. I will resume this discussion once you realize this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

So there's nothing supporting the inclusion of it in the episode table. Other than precedent you mean? There's certainly nothing excluding it from being added to the table. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I'm not counting votes, but I am illustrating how you are the only editor insistent on keeping these tables. A consensus seems to illustrate that they are unnecessary. You have not demonstrated at all why these 18–49 figures are important for the series, whereas I can grant that for network shows at least they may determine advertising rates and renewals (for the same such reason, I am opposed to adding it to the episode table), and you have not provided any such context for a general reader. It's indiscriminate information that you have previously stated has no real encyclopedic benefit, existing solely to "provide information," which violates WP:NOTSTATS/WP:IINFO. -- Wikipedical (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

From what I've seen of this discussion, there are four editors involved, three for removing, one against. I think it would be wise to remember that this is quite a niche series so there isn't going to be a whole lot of discussion either way. It's clear from looking at the main page that the series page is underdeveloped. I personally think once someone adds some summaries and some more content to the page the ratings tables will look more in place and relevant on the page. I certainly don't think they should be removed on a three to one majority. I support keeping them personally. So make that three for two. With voting a 60/40 or so split, it's not a mandate for doing anything. I think the tables should remain until there are at least a half dozen more votes on either side. I'll certainly keep my eye open for DVR data for Season 2. 86.8.105.97 (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

As AlexTheWhovian mentioned above, see WP:NOTVOTE. This is not about votes, it's about policy. There hasn't been one policy-based argument for keeping this data. Not all information is fit for an encyclopedia, and the demo information we're discussing fails WP:IINFO/WP:NOTSTATS because it's not important for this series – and no case has been made for its importance. So unless there's a policy-based objection, "majorities" or how many "votes" there are do not matter. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I went off and looked up 5 series at random. Game of Thrones, Weeds, The Sopranos, Grimm, and Seinfeld. I found no such demographics in any tables. I'm not a policy wonk. But it does seem to me that command practice excludes this data, and I don't care much for it personally either. I vote that its not policy. :) Iglam (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)