Entertainment desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 16

Logan's Run (TV series)

I posted on the article talk page without success... what does "The series initially had solid ratings but CBS constantly pre-empted the show which caused the series to lose much of its audience." mean? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means the network didn't air the show at the regularly scheduled time because it had something else it wanted to show instead. That tends to annoy fans, and if it happens too often, they just stop watching. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the wording to "The series initially had solid ratings but CBS constantly varied the time at which it was broadcast, which caused ..." --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excellent, thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not necessarily the same thing. The episode table does not indicate times, but the dates show that it was on Friday nights for three weeks, then moved to Mondays, where it remained until cancellation, so it doesn't seem to be a matter of varied times. On the other hand, there were only two episodes show in November 1977, and only one in December. By the time it came back with any regularity in January 1978, the fan base had probably moved on. --LarryMac | Talk 13:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it right. Pre-emption doesn't mean different time, it means not shown at all. So it was aired infrequently enough that the typical fan became a "Person of Disinterest". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Here is a preemption announcement from Monday, October 24, 1977, with Donald Moffat and Heather Menzies stating that Logan's Run was not being shown that night to make room for a couple of Halloween cartoon specials (Charlie Brown & Fat Albert), but will return the following Monday. I've restored the previous wording to the article. Thanks, Tagishsimon, for trying to clarify the wording, but while both preemption and changing time slots often result in a decline in ratings, they are not equivalent. -- ToE 16:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the trouble still remains, @ToE:, that there's considerable lack of clarity as to what the sentence containing the work "pre-emption" means. In plain language, the reader on the Clapham omnibus does not understand the use of the word pre-empt in this context. Perhaps you or someone else might like to edit the sentence so that pre-emption is explained in terms most users can understand? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in keeping with WP:ENGVAR, an article about an American TV show should be written for the reader on the Los Angeles freeway, not the one on the Clapham omnibus. To me, "preempt" is the ordinary word for this practice and does not need explanation. If Wikipedia had an article on it I'd suggest linking to that, but it doesn't, only on some related topics. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also question the logic which seemed to imply it would not have been cancelled had it not been pre-empted. Presumably they chose to pre-empt that particular show, versus all the other possibilities, because it had low ratings anyway. A possible exception would be if it was pre-empted by things the network couldn't control, like emergencies/natural disasters. Having a slot after certain sports, like football, also means the slot is constantly cut into by overtime games (although you'd think they would just schedule a post-game show long enough to take up any overtime to avoid that). But, in this case, the Halloween specials could probably have aired any time that week, so it sounds like they already had low ratings. I suppose one could also argue that even if it had low ratings, they would have increased with time, had the program been shown more regularly. Fortunately now, with Netflix and such, you can watch a new series all at once, if you choose, or whenever you want. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had the same thought. But I have not researched the matter, and, it appears, neither have you. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about "The series initially had solid ratings but CBS sometimes move the day on which the show aired, which caused the series to lose much of its audience."? I've removed the "constantly" as it's presumably unfounded. Does that meet American English ENGVAR requirements without using a term we can't explain and isn't intelligible to many of our readers? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. That sounds ambiguous; it could be interpreted to mean it got moved to a different day (although the first few episodes seem to have aired on Friday, before switching to Monday). It just skipped a few Mondays, including a gap of more than a month between November and December. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True. How about "but the show's schedule became erratic, including a gap of more than a month between November and December, and the series lost much of its audience." --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The schedule wasn't the problem, it was the network's adherence to it. Frankly, from a faux American perspective, the original wording is fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fine because it's not intelligible to a vast chunk of the English-speaking world. I know what pre-empting is in conversation and the derived term in Bridge, but it literally made no sense whatsoever in that sentence - hence my post on the talk page. If we don't have an article, perhaps we can cross-wiki link to Wiktionary? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dweller - I think this re-wording is fine, and better than the original as well as the first rewording. Without getting into a debate on the true nature of the show's problems, your sentence I think is intelligible in any ENGVAR (I am USian but fairly familiar with BrEng and AU). I don't understand Clarityfiend's objection - your sentence says that the schedule became erratic, and that specifically means that they were not adhering to a fixed schedule. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The scheduling wasn't erratic (which could be read to mean that the network showed it on any day and time it wanted to). If you replaced "schedule" with "airings", that would work. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Beaker Questions

In the British television programme The Story of Tracy Beaker, why was the lead character Tracy Beaker put into care? Agent C20 (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her background is described at The Story of Tracy Beaker#Background. Rojomoke (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How long has Tracy been living in care? Agent C20 (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More background details here, but any real chronology is obscure, probably deliberately. Alansplodge (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]