Wikipedia talk:List of U.S. television ratings archives

Notes

In September 1982, a Nielsen rating point rose from meaning 815,000 homes to 833,000 homes, based on their conclusion that the United States then had 83.3 million homes with television.[[1]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course. A Nielsen rating is constantly changing (every year) as the population changes. A rating is actually a Percentage of total U.S. households. ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, that was just a random side note I put up there. Not sure what I was intending to do with it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of clipping of newspapers here [2]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal of links

mikeblas, i see a few months ago you mass removed links to scans of lists that I found. Why can't we link them? If you are concerned they violate the copyright of the newspapers, they don't seem to mind. Maybe he has permission. I think it diminishes the value of this research tool to remove all those links!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed many links here, indeed. They all linked to self-published essays, which aren't reliable sources (see WP:NOTRS and WP:SELFPUBLISH). I also removed links to copyvio material (see WP:YTCOPYRIGHT and WP:COPYVIO).

"Maybe" and "don't seem to mind" don't explicitly grant permission to reproduce material covered by copyright. Instead, proof of an explicit license or grant would be necessary.

I raised this issue at the Television WikiProject. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_31#Is_fbibler.chez.com_a_reliable_source? and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_31#tvaholics_blog_as_Reliable_source? where it was discussed and there was no objection to accommodating the legalities of Wikipedia policy for references and copyvio material.

If this information is useful and notable, I'm sure there's an available, usable source for it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeblas, there's much of human knowledge that's useful and notable and not easily available online. If you are aware of a better source, let me know. No knock on you, I appreciate all your work, but I always find it interesting to run across editors who seek to enforce interpretations of copyright laws more forcefully than copyright holders seem to do. All my cites were to underlying reliable sources, and this page isn't even an article, just a resource page. But this page is still useful to niche historians who wish to research the American zeitgeist of narrow time windows. I ran across your edits due to a little confusion as to whether Policewoman Centerfold was the most watched American TV program for the first week of July 1985. It was! You can watch this cinematic non-classic online for free![3]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The burden to provide a source isn't on me -- please see WP:PROVEIT. The source already exists, though -- those listings were from the USA Today newspaper, and can be cited from the paper directly. (I think this is discussed over in the talk page I linked.) Also, you can read more about the motivations for Wikipedia's copyright policies at Wikipedia:Basic copyright issues. Hope that helps! -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeblas, this isn't about a "burden" on you! Its about the preservation and dissemination of all human knowledge! The glorious ability to discover the serious and mundane from all of human history through the click of a link! The fact that US Copyright law currently is designed to save Mickey Mouse, and not the citizens of the United States, irks me.[4]. So it goes, I have no sway over it. But will you go to the grave saying "at least the CEO of Gannett was able to buy a 11th yacht because of me!" or will you say "let's watch the Gary Coleman classic The Kid from Left Field, which was the 15th highest-rated prime time show for the last week of September 1979!" That choice is yours. Also, I may be a bit unhinged on these things, and appreciate your civility!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it's an issue of buying yachts. The issue is following Wikipedia's guidelines -- even outside of copyright regulations. What's posted here must be verifiable at reliable sources. A link to a self-published blog isn't a reliable reference. A link to a file in a secret directory at some website that has a scan of an undated, un-sourced listing isn't reliable. Instead, why not follow the suggestions in the talk page I linked to formulate viable reference with the sources that you say you already have? -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

Hello @Milowent: I want to say how great this page is! I'm also into TV ratings and stuff and would like to significantly expand/enhance this page. I've started working in User:Heartfox/sandbox/Nielsen and my current focus is on the 1990s, and finding sources with viewership and 18–49 information. I also am putting them in a table format, which I think organizes stuff a bit better and is easy to understand. If you're okay with it, I'd like to transfer over some of my stuff to this page and start working here. I think this could really be a helpful resource! Heartfox (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox:, that sounds great. As long as we aren't deleting any information, it all sounds great to me! If you go into history, the version of this page back in March 2020 had lots of links that were deleted (due to copyright concerns) that may help your research.[5].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll keep the free versions as well as links to other places that may require a free registration or a subscription. Heartfox (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]