Talk:Castle (TV series)

Official Website

Why is a fan site listed as the official website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.231.105 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Inspired By

I've never seen "Bones" as being mentioned as an inspiration for the show and I've seen just about every news item out there on this show. I know people have mentioned that it sounds like it might have a similar feel to Bones but that doesn't mean it was an inspiration. Moonlighting & Rockerford Files were both mentioned by the shows creator as being inspirations for him. If you have a source that indicates he said the same of Bones I'll happily concede. Fan70 (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ya, I used to enjoy that "Rockerford Files" show when I was a kid. Back when they called it "The Rockford Files"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.58.123 (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fillion mentioned in http://tvblog.ugo.com/index.php/tvblog/more/nathan_fillion_talks_castle_and_a_little_itty_bit_of_whedon/ that the show is inspired by Robert B. Parker's Spenser series. Someone want to include it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.38.242 (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Added inspiration, references, & changed "upcoming" stuff. avythe (talk) 9:59, 09 March 2009 (PST)

I haven't seen "Moonlighting" and "The Rockford Files" officially mentioned as inspiration for the show. They're on http://castletv.net/about, but that is clearly a fan website and doesn't seem to be speaking for the show or its creators. Can anyone find the original source of this? (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It actually sounds similar to Department S or Jason King - crime novelist called into investigations to help solve crimes... Howie ☎ 21:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ratings

Why is it that the ratings are never ever sourced? I am getting really tired of virtually every article on Wikipedia having poor or unsourced material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitrightthefirsttime (talk • contribs) 18:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Laser Tag

Was that a real laser tag set in the s01e05? What brand is it? 66.189.76.194 (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Episode List

Is it just me or is there no link to the episode list? 70.244.161.168 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is one in the infobox "No. of episodes 10 (List of episodes)" _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 18:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

It's great somebody is so enthusiastic as to post the preliminary ratings the very second they come out, but it's not a good policy. Ratings often change a good deal once the finals come out, and it's the finals this article should be reporting. Case in point--the third episode of Castle's second season had a 3.0 in the demo and over 11 million viewers, in the fast overnights. But once the finals came out, it fell to 2.2 in the demo and the number of viewers fell by over two million. Reason?--Brett Favre playing his old team preempted Castle in some markets, and just about everybody in those markets was watching the game. I'm going to fix that shortly (if nobody else does it first). It should be a settled policy that ONLY final ratings numbers should be edited into this article. This only means a short delay, and it avoids a lot of additional edits to correct the mistake. Xfpisher (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you do make that change, be sure you have a darned reliable source for it and reference it, or you're going to find yourself going back-and-forth. The major sources publishing the ratings all have 11.46 million posted as of this morning. Drmargi (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's done, and the sources you're seeing are out of date. In fact, all the ratings cited for this season were wrong. ONLY finals should be used. That's the most accurate data Nielsen provides, and that's what Wikipedia should be using

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/06/castle-drops-to-2-2-adults-18-49-rating-in-final-numbers/29762

http://regator.com/p/218452129/castle_drops_to_22_adults_18-49_rating_in/

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=255146

It's an unusual thing for the fast nationals and the finals to differ so greatly, and it was caused by the big game with Brett Favre. Those extra millions were watching football, not Castle. Xfpisher (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it again. I note in passing that the person who edited the incorrect #'s back into the article didn't come here to the discussion page, and didn't really bother to justify it at all. Finals are finals. The ratings used for last season's chart are final ratings. To use higher preliminary ratings for the second season skews the information being provided to the reader. All the more for this week's episode, because of the exceptionally large distortion created by the football game preempting Castle in several major markets. Do we need to call in a higher authority? Xfpisher (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The ratings have no sources cited in the article itself, but I have always included source links in my edit summaries. The source I cited this time includes an ABC press release. I will not edit again today, but I'll be checking in tomorrow, and for some time to come, so please think twice about an edit war that can only have one ending. These are the real #'s, like 'em or not. Xfpisher (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that you are NOT sourcing the change correctly. The reference belongs in text (i.e. right next to the revised rating), not on the talk page or in the edit summary. Do you know how to do that? If not, find out, or the edit war is bound to continue. The burden is on you to source what you contend are the final ratings, and to justify a change from the fast overnights that are ordinarily posted. Drmargi (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The overnights are not the norm, and should not be used at all, even briefly. Check the first season ratings (which have no source cited for them) and you'll see they are the finals--they were corrected from the overnights in later edits, and that was accepted, so that's the established norm. If you want all the ratings to be sourced, then feel free to do that--for all of the episodes--using FINAL #'s. Also, since the ratings chart being employed includes the final weekly ranking for each episode--something that obviously isn't available when the overnights are published, or for some time afterwards, hence the 'TBA' thingy--that means that the finals MUST be used, or there'll be an inherent conflict in the information presented in a single grid. It also proves that it's acceptable to add ratings information later on, without providing a source. I didn't set this format up, and it's not my fault if it violates any guidelines. I don't think there's any Wikipedia guideline that says that when inaccurate unsourced information is replaced by accurate unsourced info, the inaccurate information must be restored. Source the accurate info--which is easily sourced. Why, might I ask, would you want the inaccurate information to remain in place, particularly when it conflicts with the earlier ratings information in the same article? Documented accurate information is the driving criteria behind every Wikipedia guideline. Deliberately allowing people to think Castle had over two million more viewers this week, when in fact those people were watching a football game, and there's an ABC press release touting the lower final ratings numbers--that's simply unacceptable. Xfpisher (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's changed back again. So now we have ABC saying in a press release that the latest episode had 9.23 million viewers and a 2.2 in the demo, and we have Wikipedia insisting that it had over 11 million viewers and 3.0 in the demo. And that's what you get for letting fans who don't give a damn about facts edit Wikipedia articles. We'll get back to this tomorrow, trust me.  :)Xfpisher (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I see the problem--because some people who were happy about the ratings being higher this week don't want to believe the ratings went down, and will edit the results to confirm their happy illusion, that means I have to prove they did go down with a citation, even though none of the other ratings listed have any citation at all? I personally think this is a very inappropriate and wrongheaded application of the guidelines relating to sourcing and challenges. This isn't something that CAN be challenged. It's an unimpeachable, network confirmed, ironclad official FACT. It's like having to cite a source for 2+2=4. It's precisely the kind of thing that makes many people still look down on Wikipedia. It never happens with the best Wikipedia articles. But of course this is not ever going to be one of those. I'll fix it tomorrow, and I hope to see no further excuses for inaccuracy afterwards. Xfpisher (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, perhaps if you'd stop having a tantrum because no one is falling down at your feet and believing what you say, and actually read what's being written about the need for and location of sourcing that will stop the edit war over these ratings, you wouldn't have the problem you've created singlehandedly. No one is questioning the difference between the final and fast national ratings, and talking to us like we're imbeciles, particularly when you have no idea how much we know about the ratings, will get you nowhere and insure no sort of cooperation from other editors, or respect for your ideas. All you have to do is change the ratings and source the change with a WP:RELIABLE source (not the message board post you have now, and problem solved. So, how about sparing us the pointless, groundless and meaningless malarkey about why people won't accept your word for it and put a reliable source where your mouth is: in the article. Drmargi (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you'd actually look at the sources I cited, you'd realize there one of them inclues an ABC press release. You think ABC is deliberately lowering the ratings of its own series? You are adopting an unjustifiably rigid interpretation of the admirably flexible Wikipedia guidelines you quote. It is simply not true that a self-published source is never acceptable. General Sitcoms is not just some message board--it's a widely used source, even by professionals. Finals don't usually get published in newspapers--this means they don't exist? You can make this as hard as you please, but I'm going to keep coming back at this until the correct ratings are on that chart. As they already are for the first season chart. You want to start fighting over that too? The guidelines don't exist for the purpose of preferring inaccurate information to accurate information. If they ever do show such a preference, then the guidelines themselves need to be revised. But in this case, it's merely your use of them that is faulty. Xfpisher (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sorry--'believing what I say?'--where am I asking anyone to do that? You know quite well the numbers I'm providing are accurate. You know quite well the numbers you're putting back up are wrong, and especially wrong for the most recent episode, due to the football game preempting Castle in major markets. You have the sources to prove this right at your fingertips. You are deliberately choosing to ignore them. I'm not asking you to believe what I'm saying. I'm asking you to believe your own eyes. Xfpisher (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See now? You get the source you've been jumping up and down about in the article and now you've got no problem. And you've ended the edit war into the bargain. The bottom line? You're taking all this far too personally, and completely missing the point as a result. What I know isn't relevant. What is reliably sourced IS, and you know that perfectly well. The rest is just the huffing and puffing of a self-appointed expert, which doesn't cut any mustard around here, and was bound to get you reverted. This last round of edits is what you should have done to begin with, and saved yourself all the aggravation. Drmargi (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You could have saved yourself quite a bit of exaggeration by noticing that the ratings here were NEVER sourced before, and that I already had all the proof I needed. And it's a bit funny to see one Wikipedia editor call another "a self-appointed expert". Bet Stephen Colbert would get a good chuckle out of that.  :)Xfpisher (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you were totally right, Drmargi. Putting in those citations totally avoided an edit war. Which is why some anonymous person keeps trying to put the ratings back the way he or she wants them to be, instead of the way they actually are. Without even trying to justify it. So what's the plan now? Should I provide citations for the citations?  :)Xfpisher (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are two approaches. One, you can continue to behave with the maturity of a 13-year-old and leave petulant messages for me, or you can add a note explaining the corrected ratings. Me, I'd go for the problem-solving approach, but if continued tantrums suit you I'll come change your diapers occasionally. BTW, if you don't know the difference between a persistent anon IP reverting your edit and the edit war you had before it's time to learn. Drmargi (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are two responses to your typically heavy-handed and unhelpful remarks. One, I can point out that diaper jokes are more of a 13 year old thing than irony. Or two, I can point out that I've already explained the correct ratings quite a few times, and some people just don't want to listen. What I'm noticing is that I'm the only one fixing these anonymous edits. Now seriously--get off the high horse and stop pretending you've done anything but encourage these anonymous edits. You're only scolding the person who is using his own spare time to try and keep this article from being a joke. Not the people responsible for makig it one. Xfpisher (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a mixed metaphor, not ironic. But never mind. Given the number of times you've thrown your toys out of your pram because no one accepted you had THE final word, and most of the edits that were reverted were unsourced, which essentially creates a "your word against mine" situation, your reaction isn't surprising. There are places these explanations go, and the talk page tends NOT to be where people look, yet you persisted in putting the sources there, and got what you should have expected. I've made a perfectly reasonable suggestion that you add a note, and might also suggest you add a hidden text note explaining the changed ratings. Either should help. It's up to you: do it, don't do it, it's no skin off my nose. But if you don't, quit whining about people reverting your edits. Oh, and BTW, we none of us does this for a living, and all edit for the same basic motives, so I wouldn't be so holier-than-thou about the edits you've made. Far better to shrug your shoulders and recognize that this sort of thing happens, and there's no way around it. Drmargi (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're so cavalier about accuracy, Drmargi. "Hey, if some fan wants to increase his or her favorite show's ratings on Wikipedia, in direct contradiction to ABC press releases citing the correct ratings, no skin off my nose. These things happen." I won't look to you for any help, and you can go on looking the other way. 'Kay?  :)Xfpisher (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you entirely miss the point. If I were so cavalier, I'd have walked away long ago. Instead, however fruitlessly, I'm attempting to cut through your colossal ego and your wounded feelings, and show you how to get your edits taken seriously, since you've had so much luck on your own up to now. If you'd be more open and less combative, this would have been taken care of long ago. So, are you going to add the note, or are you going to have yet another tantrum? Drmargi (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Drmargi, why don't we cut this short? I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. The note you mention would make no difference, and I've never stopped following the proper procedures, explaining why each edit is necessary. I followed your advice (which involved adding sources where none had previously been cited), and it didn't end the problem, because the real problem is a few people being unwilling to accept the proven facts, and trying to use this article as a personal fanpage. If you want to call in a higher authority, please do so--I'd appreciate it, in fact. And would you stop with the personal comments, please? Maybe you feel I started that, but looking over our conversation thus far, it seems otherwise to me. I sincerely hope you don't behave like this all the time. It's made a civil conversation damned near impossible. Xfpisher (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Having read your page here more carefully, I see this is by no means a new situation for you to be in, and you've been called on the carpet more often than I have. So again--the high horse. Dismount. :)Xfpisher (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheap shot layered upon cheap shot does nothing for your credibility. But I am pleased to see you've decided to get down off your high horse, at long last. -- Drmargi (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Now you're just copying me.  :)Xfpisher (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Final v. Live + 7 Day

Yes, Live + 7 Day throws the table off - temporarily. But at the same time, they are the most complete, accurate and current ratings and should be in the table. They take time to come, and only recently have been widely available, so a certain amount of transitional explanation will be needed. We'll adapt. This is about accuracy, not the purpose of ratings, after all. --Drmargi (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only do all the other ratings--for both seasons--have to include DVR #'s for this to be acceptable (and I question whether it's even possible, since DVR #'s have been inconsistently available), but it would also be necessary to TELL the reader that these #'s include DVR viewers. There also has to be a link to a Wikipedia article that will explain to the reader what kind of data this is, and that it's still of limited usefulness to networks, because DVR viewings don't significantly increase the amount of revenue generated by any given show. I will not accept this data being included on a case by case basis. All or none, or else the reader is being deceived. Consistency is paramount, because the whole point of these tables is to show how the ratings have changed from week to week, and from season to season. I really hope you know I'm serious about this. You cannot arbitrarily rewrite the rules. If you want to use Live+7 #'s, create a separate table for them, and identify them as such, with the necessary explanatory links. Or we have a problem.Xfpisher (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I could have predicted this. It's always fun when editors edit with their egos. Since you clearly didn't pay much attention to the edit I put in place, have made this personal and have now declared yourself owner of the article despite an apparent lack of interest in anything to do with it aside from winning at all costs, it's obvious another strategy is needed. Fine and dandy. -- Drmargi (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting off the subject of you and me, and back to what we're supposed to be discussing, it's completely unreasonable to expect the reader to understand that some numbers on the chart are calculated one way, and others are calculated differently, including viewers who chose to record the show to watch later--it makes it impossible to track the show's rises and falls, which is what the chart is for. It's very simple, but I'll explain it again. More information is fine. Live+7 is fine. But either there's a new chart for Live+7, or else you simply expand the existing chart to include it. One more column--is that too hard? You can't list Live+7 ratings as the regular ratings--even if you had all the Live+7 #'s for the show's run to date, which I don't think you do. I will edit them out until they are in a separate chart or a separate column on the chart--they can SUPPLEMENT the final ratings, but they can't REPLACE them. When this is over, the reader of this article will be able to see the final ratings for every episode--without DVR added in. Whether you want to make the Live+7 available as well is up to you. Now if you can stop with the sulking, maybe we can still work this out. Xfpisher (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

See now? You listen to my suggestions, and avoid another edit war. ;) Mind you, I think a separate column (or a whole new chart) would have been less confusing, but your way uses less space. It's an acceptable compromise. I won't revert it.Xfpisher (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Enjoying being petty, are we? I hate to disappoint you, since you're enjoying your moment of false triumph, but someone else did the edit. I have other plans, but they'll take more time than I have at the moment. -- Drmargi (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I simply used the same language you did when I followed your advice-was that petty? I didn't know. :) Doesn't matter who did the edit. I still got what I wanted--which was for the reader not to be misled by an inconsistent ratings table. I actually think about the reader. Sue me. Take your time with those plans, and bear in mind--I'm not going to stop checking. Oh, and thanks for your graceful acknowledgement that I can accept compromises. Try it sometime.Xfpisher (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You entirely miss the point. But no great surprise there - you have all along. You go be a good boy and hold your breath until the next move. -- Drmargi (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"The next move?" You make it sound like this is a game you have to win. Isn't that what you were accusing me of? Before I accepted a reasonable compromise? Which I gather isn't good enough for you? Xfpisher (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratings again

The ratings on the episode page are both inconsistent and incomplete. I recommend moving the ratings back here until that page is sorted out. You can't fix a ruler without any sense of how long a foot is. Flapjack727 (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There, now its consistent Flapjack727 (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I called a halt while adding ratings because of the childish edit war between two editors determined they know how to format best. Let's hope what you did stays put. Drmargi (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

International broadcasters

Is the Worldpremiere of the Second Season realy in Portugal and not in the USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1989 Rosie (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of and I doubt it, why do you think so? There's nothing in the current article that suggests that. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Castle being broadcast in the UK? I can't find any mention of it, which seems really strange for a series that already has ~24 episodes and should finish the second season at ~36. Does anyone know if it is airing in the UK? 24.141.166.69 (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

US Nielsen ratings

Season	Episodes	Timeslot (EST)	Original Airing			Rank	Viewers (in millions)
			Season Premiere	Season Finale	TV Season
1st	9	Monday 10:00pm/9c	March 9, 2009	May 11, 2009	2009	#35	10.32
2nd	22	Monday 10:00pm/9c	September 21, 2009	May 2010	2009-2010	TBA	10.30 (to date)

or

Season	Premiere	Finale	Rank	Viewers
1	March 9, 2009 (2009-03-09)	May 11, 2009 (2009-05-11)	#35	10.32
2	September 21, 2009 (2009-09-21)	May 2010 (2010-05)	—	—

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosie1989 (talk • contribs)

The top table is not "better." It is too cluttered, too hard to read, and contains irrelevant or redundant information (we know what season it is, we know what time the show is on - that's in the narrative.) Time is particularly problematic: the US has six time zones and the show's runtime varies by time zone. The EST-centric entry reflects 1/6 of the country's time zones and far less of it's population, which is inappropriate all on its own. This table is also intended to be a summary table, reflecting a season's ratings. Season Two is scheduled to be 22 episodes, and has run eight thus far. Adding the current week's rating is not an indicator of the current season's ratings, and is an inappropriate, meaningless entry. That should be left blank until the season's ratings are calculated some time in June. (Note: week-to-week ratings cannot be averaged because viewer numbers are not equal, and such calculations are WP:OR.) The data need the clean and simple presentation, easily read presentation in the second table. Drmargi (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this table better?

Season	Episodes	Original Airing		Rank	Viewers (in millions)
		Season Premiere	Season Finale
1st	9	March 9, 2009	May 11, 2009	#35	10.32
2nd	22	September 21, 2009	May 2010	TBA	TBA

1989 Rosie (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It really is. I like the addition of the episode numbers, and the cleaner presentation. The only suggestion I would make is to add the padding in the second table, which adds a little space around the numbers. That makes them even easier to read. Perhaps Xeworlebi would be willing to add that to the compromise table? Drmargi (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree with what Drmargi said, additionally, padding looks less cluttered and eases readability. You should not use 1st and 2nd as the header says season, which would make itseason 1ste and season 2nd which is wrong. The link towards the episode list per season should be under the season number as that is what you link to, not the episode count. The date formatting per template should be used as it ensures a consistency throughout the page's date formatting. I also don't really se the use for the additional Original Airing (which has wrong capitalization on a side note) as it is obvious that it is about the initial run, as ratings for syndication are rarely useful, and are not available in this instance. I see no promblem with the addition of number of episodes, they don't really have any weight into the average amount of viewers but the premier and finale don't either. Proposal:

Season	Episodes	Premiere	Finale	Rank	Viewers (million)
1	9	March 9, 2009 (2009-03-09)	May 11, 2009 (2009-05-11)	#35	10.32
2	22	September 21, 2009 (2009-09-21)	May 2010 (2010-05)	—	—

_Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 17:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed, why are 3 cells darker than the rest? (rank S01 & S02 + Viewers S01) It's because you use ! instead of | which indicates a header. But why is it used? _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK we've got a compromise. I'd go back to TBA in the two empty cells (well, I'd leave them empty since TBA is implied) rather than N/A, which is erroneous in this context. I hadn't noticed the incorrect use of 1st, etc. Good catch! I also prefer the season number linked rather than the number of episodes. The final table looks great to me. Drmargi (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Final Ranking for 2009-2010 Season

Several people have added Castle's ranking either without a source, or based on an informal list columnist Nellie Andreeva made. That entry, which should be accompanied by average viewer figures, should come from Nielson, not an arbitrary other source, which in Andreeva's case, is of questionable reliability. Andreeva is a columnist, not a statistician with the skills to properly determine final data for any series, much less rank them. Moreover, she has two lists, and the last poster used the list based on the demo, even though the table is for rankings based on total viewers. Drmargi (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Archvillain

I know that talk pages aren't to be used as a crystal ball and stuff. But it'll be really cool if Alexis grew up to be the criminal mastermind that manages to stay one step ahead of our heroes! -- Karunyan, 08:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)