Talk:List of Hellcats episodes

edit war

Page is temporarily protected to stop edit warring. If it resumes after protection is expired, expect to be blocked. Please discuss here instead. See WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR for more information on why edit warring is not tolerated. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why the anon user kept adding the colors back into the article. I warned the user for edit warring and also about not making those changes. ChaosMaster_Chat 23:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there's no reason to use colors right now since no DVD was released. Decodet (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with the colors, this is a clear cut case of ownership. The argument "what if the DVD's are pink?" is quite lame, then we change it, what if the DVD's are not gray? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this war via my watchlist, and I have to agree with Xeworlebi. I don't see what the issue is with using colors. I know of no rule/guideline/requirement that ep lists must be gray until a DVD is released. Who really cares? --Logical Fuzz (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, we have a disagreement about ratings. Can someone please tell me why this page, contrary to most (not all) of wikipedia, uses rounded one decimal figures for ratings, rather than two decimal places? ChaosMaster_Chat 20:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The page has once again been protected due to the ongoing edit disputes. I declined to ask for any further sanctions, although WP:3RR and WP:OWN are being stomped into the mud. Discuss amongst yourselves and reach consensus before continuing down the path to true stupidity, please. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter what colour the episode list is? And why does it matter if only one decimal place is used for the ratings? If we get this all cleared up in here then there won't be any more problems with the page is unprotected again. Jayy008 (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that the color issue was ever resolved, despite ChaosMaster's comment to the contrary in an edit summary here. There has been no valid argument regarding the color needing to be gray. As far as I can tell, the only one reverting the blue color is ChaosMaster, which seems very much like an ownership issue. Regarding the ratings data, I need to check out the references to come up with a definitive opinion on that issue. I will say, though, that a general preference for me would be 2 digits after the decimal. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well one ref is a CW press release citing 3.0 million viewers. The other is TvbytheNumbers citing 2.99. That could be rounded to 3.0 anyway? So it doesn't matter? Jayy008 (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The CW press release is giving final numbers (you can tell from the demos) when it states 3.0, while TVbytheNumbers is giving the overnights with 2.99. Regardless of which type of reporting is chosen, there needs to be consistency. Note that for the 3rd episode, both "sides" have been using the same reference, which is for the overnights, giving us the 2.32. So to use finals data in the table, a new reference is needed for episode 3. I would say that since overnights are more readily available, that would be the way to go.

For finals data, many people in the past used Travis Yanan at The Programming Insider (pifeedback.com), but this has been determined that this is not a reliable source. If anyone does have a reliable source, with consistent finals data (available every week without fail), then we can do the table in finals. That said, I still don't think that all the data needs to be rounded to 1 digit after the decimal. If that's all there is for episode one, fine, keep it 3.0. But I don't feel that means that every number needs to be rounded. So what if one is different, if that's all we had? But then again, if we have a reliable finals source, than we could use that for episode 1 instead of the CW ref, giving us 2 digits past the decimal. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Final numbers should be used, if non is available don't put one in, don't fall back on overnight figures just to have a rating. I have no issue with using two digits after the decimal, but do not add trailing zero's, this is wrong (see Significant figures). The color issue as I previously said is to me an ownership issue. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for finals data? I would prefer finals, but I don't think we should be leaving some weeks blank if we have no data. IMO, I would rather have data for every week, even if that means we use overnights instead. But I definitely think there needs to be consistency. The numbers can't be mixed. And as I have stated before, I agree with the significant figures issue. 3 ≠ 3.0 ≠ 3.00 Zeros cannot be added on a whim. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

TV by the Numbers gives both overnight and final ratings most of the time. Overnight ratings are incorrect numbers (that's why they're corrected with final ratings) and should not be used just because finals aren't always available (overnight isn't always available either). _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

TVbythenumbers uses TravisYanan too, so why can't we? We can take it somewhere to get that particular forum un-blacklisted and for use simply for finals. A similar argument was brought up about MariahJoural, it is reliable with some sales figures that can't be found anywhere else. So after taking it somewhere (I can't remember where), the website is now allowed for Australian sales figures prior to 1997. Despite it being a fan site. Can we do this for TravisYanan's finals? If somebody knows where to take the argument. I agree with Logical Fuzz, though. Although finals are preferred, we can't just leave weeks blank or have an inconsistent article. For now, we have to use overnights as overnights are the only ones availble for all three episodes. Xeworlebi, would you rather just leave weeks blank then? Jayy008 (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if we use overnight, aka, incomplete and wrong, ratings it would be worse than not including one, just for the sake of having one. And pifeedback.com should not be used. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but that's not your decision. It can be granted special dispensation if enough users needs it to make articles better. As for the overnight thing, that will need a consensus to say not to use them and have blank weeks instead. Jayy008 (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No it's not mine, it's the communities, there have been several discussions about this. It should not be used. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 23:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I was briefly involved in a pifeedback fiasco at Ghost Whisperer. Long discussions there, on reliable sources noticeboard, and i think a trickle or two on admin noticeboards. Result was to use anything but pifeedback (because it is a forum) and if a reliable source uses Travis' postings then use the reliable source. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering... where the hell can we find those final ratings? Decodet (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about those discussions. What were people's reasons? I can't see a reason why it can't be used when TvbytheNumbers copies it exactly as it is from that website. PS. to Decodet: Here, he usually posts them in the comments of his original overnight ratings posting Jayy008 (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If this source is reliable, I can't see a reason not to use the final ratings. It looks like they post every day's rating, so why would we have blank spaces? I'm not used to work on TV articles (Hellcats was the first, actually) so everything is new for me. Decodet (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to get into the reliability of pifeedback/Travis Yanan---IMO that really should be brought up elsewhere. There have been several discussions regarding this, a recent one is here, another here. You guys can read the opinions.

From my experience, the finals are not always available at TVbytheNumbers. For example, Wednesday 9/23 data is here, note that TVbytheNumbers only mentions a few changes to demographics, no final viewership numbers. (And for anyone who is wondering, no, you can't extrapolate the demos into millions of viewers.) I was hoping for a different reliable source, one which is consistent. Regarding overnights vs finals, I do not want to create an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but there are many TV pages which use overnight ratings. It would seem that not everyone thinks they are "wrong". That's just my opinion, and all I'll say on that. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the finals but also realise that unless i subscribe to Nielsen's datastream i am not going to get finals for every show - and i don't have the kind of money it would take to subscribe to Nielsen. Press releases, from my experiences elsewhere, often do not agree with the ratings company's numbers, especially when they are nice even numbers like 2 million while Nielsen would have 1.837. Also not every broadcaster will put out a press release announcing the ratings for each episode. If the numbers get too bad to boast about bye-bye go the weekly press releases.

If the show does not place in the weekly top 25 (the current cut-off on TVBTN) then one is not likely to get final numbers for the episode. As that means MOST shows only have overnight data available that is what is used. Like on Flashpoint, i have the Canadian finals and others add in the US overnight, because that is what is available. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like overnight is best then. If someone disagrees it should be brought up in a dicussion. Jayy008 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So we're going with what gets the most information rather than the more correct information? Jus to know. I tell you guys, I've seen more issues with what type of ratings to use; overnight, final, live +7, DVR; were to put them; in the episode list, on the main article, on the episode list in a separate table; how many of the ratings stats to put in; viewers, HH rating, HH share, 18–49 rating, 18–49 share, rank; … Hell, at this point I would be happy if we just get rid off all these rating statistics. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Eventually, that maybe a solution. But everyone uses TvbytheNumbers as a source for it's overnight ratings, but people prefer finals, which seems general. You're the only person who seems to have a problem with it (so far). Isn't this issue about viewers (m) though? Not ratings? Jayy008 (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing comment: TvbytheNumbers has said they are going to post final ratings throughout the season until May. Jayy008 (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That is great news! Where did you see that? Can we agree to use finals then? I think everyone would prefer them. I'm not sure what is meant by the phrase "closing comment", since it seems your post changes everything? --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant like, there's no need for any more argument. I will argue, however, that we can use overnights for the second episodes of The Vampire Diaries, Hellcats and Nikita and they weren't posted for that week. Since it's only one week, using overnights shouldn't be so bad? I agree, though, we can use finals. PS. on TvbytheNumbers, somebody commented and Bill Gorman (man who posts the ratings on there) said they will be posting them daily from now on. So yes, great news :D. Jayy008 (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, for Hellcats it is episode 3 that we don't have finals for. I will still argue strongly not to mix data. The table needs to be consistent or the data is useless. There has got to be another source of finals data out there somewhere. If we can find it for the 9/23 episode, then finals should be the way to go. We can do one of 2 things: Convert the table to finals and leave 9/23 blank until we find the data, or, wait until we find the data to convert the table from overnights. Opinions everyone?? I'm glad that TVbytheNumbers will be publishing the finals consistently. Strange timing, what a coincidence, huh? They usually say "just look at Travis Yanan's posts on pifeedback" for the rest of the data. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly Nielsen is in it for the money, they sell there figures and don't just post them online for free. Unlike BARB in the UK and BBM in Canada which were created by organizations of broadcasters themselves, and do it for themselves and not the money, so they post these finding online. There are few place that publish the viewers; LATimes posts them sporadically, but they are hard to find and irregular; ABCMedianet.com used to post a ton of programs, 80–120, (almost) weekly, viewers (live + same day I believe) and rank for that week, they usually posted a day or two after the week was over. But also that website is hard to search trough, and they seem to be posted less and less, and not in an easy list format, making it very hard to find anything. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite your insistence on using finals data (because you feel overnights are "wrong"), you still haven't been able to come up with a consistent, reliable source for the finals. I'm confused. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to be confused about, I gave you my opinion; that I find final (mind the word "final") better than overnight; and the fact that there isn't one super source. Nielsen does this for money, anyone who wants the ratings will have to pay for them, besides the broadcasting corporations themselves there are a few newspapers who buy them and then there is TV by the Numbers. Which is what I explained. I'm really get tired of discussing about ratings, there always seems to some kind of issue with them, if you guys want to use overnight I won't stop you. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

To Logical Fuzz, I say leave it for two weeks just to make sure they actually do keep up with the finals posts, he didn't say definitely, he said "probably" if I recall corrently. So let's just wait and see. TravisYanan is obviously reliable, would you support using PiFeedback? Please don't comment on the fact it's a "forum" we can get around that. Jayy008 (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I will not support it. That's all I will say on the subject of pifeedbck--as I eluded to before (above), I have no interest in getting involved in that..--Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If we want to use fianls then lets just use Travis Yanan. What's wrong with that?FineGrate (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's from a forum, forums aren't allowed as sources. No exceptions. Jayy008 (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand that. But why not add 3.00 (the same thing as 3.0) for unitformity? Every single thing has 2 decimal places EXCEPT that number.FineGrate (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally agree, but it can't be done. Adding zero's for the sake of it because the source says 3.0 not 3.00. Since it's only one episode that's one decimal place, it's been decided the first ep can stay like it, unfortunately. Jayy008 (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are guest stars forbidden to be shown if reliably sourced? and...

...are shown in the show ending credits and at sources. http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/hellcats-finish-what-we-started/EP012805820009 + the CW itself in three OFFICIAL photos, one of which is http://www.cwtv.com/shows/hellcats/photos/005988301a1 (with caption so there can be no misinterpretation)?
I believe that 'Guest stars' are definately notable. What do you think?—Iknow23 (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The summary is for the the summary not a list of trivia like guest starts, music played etc. They can be added when they are worked into the summary, for example guest stars which are notable have there characters name in the summary and the name of the actor can be added after that name "…character (actor)…", tacked on music appearances the same, for example, "band played a song in this episode." would be not good, but if it is worked into the episode like, "…such and such go to a band concert were…" (something notable happens) would be good. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 12:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)