Talk:Poor and Stupid
Appearance
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nielsen ratings
[edit]On October 9th, user NoD'ohnuts added some text that includes "a 1.8 rating/5% share". The text is preceded with a link to the Nielsen Media Research article, and the source is a page at tvbythenumbers.com. In my opinion, there are two problems with this:
- Let's start with the source. It is a page at tvbythenumbers.com. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about tvbythenumbers or tvbythenumbers.com. The page at tvbythenumbers.com has a line "- 1.8/5 A18-49" that is precede by "All of that and much more of Wednesday’s cable finals via Travis Yanan". In that text, the person's name links to their source, a Twitter page. Now I have to look for a tweet: the older it is, the more I need to click "more". It turns out there are two links to overviews for 10/06/10 and I need the "cable final" link - not the broadcast final link. So, his source turns out to be a forum post, by the guy himself on a website pifeedback.com. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about pifeedback or pifeedback.com. All in all, I'm sure there's a better source out there than (a) a forum post on (b) an unknown website by (c) an unknown person.
- The English Wikipedia is not just visited by Americans, but even many of them may not know that 1.8/5 is a Nielsen rating that gives the percentage of US households that watched this episode: the former of TV owners, the latter of TV owners watching TV. Adding a link to Nielsen ratings would help, but we could use a {{Nielsen ratings|1.8|5}} or something similar, because Nielsen ratings are mentioned quite a bit on Wikipedia. This would standardize things and assures a link to Nielsen ratings is automatically being added. However, most importantly: it could - and should, in my opinion - explain as brief as possible what these numbers actually mean. It should not say "1.8 rating", but something like "seen by 1.8% of all US TV owners". This would make things so much clearer for so many people...
--82.171.70.54 (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
No actual cultural references in the cultural references section.
[edit]Shouldn't we rename it "Trivia" or just delete it?--No hay nick libre (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Most aren't even trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.35.247 (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Categories:
- Start-Class Animation articles
- Low-importance Animation articles
- Start-Class Animation articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class American animation articles
- Low-importance American animation articles
- American animation work group articles
- Start-Class Animated television articles
- Low-importance Animated television articles
- Animated television work group articles
- Start-Class Computer animation articles
- Unknown-importance Computer animation articles
- Computer animation work group articles
- WikiProject Animation articles
- Start-Class Comedy articles
- Low-importance Comedy articles
- WikiProject Comedy articles
- Start-Class NASCAR articles
- Low-importance NASCAR articles
- WikiProject NASCAR articles
- Start-Class South Park articles
- Low-importance South Park articles
- South Park task force articles
- Start-Class television articles
- Low-importance television articles
- Start-Class Episode coverage articles
- Low-importance Episode coverage articles
- Episode coverage task force articles
- WikiProject Television articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
- Unknown-importance American animation articles
- Start-Class American television articles
- Unknown-importance American television articles
- American television task force articles
- Start-Class Colorado articles
- Unknown-importance Colorado articles
- WikiProject Colorado articles
- WikiProject United States articles