Talk:The Good Guys (2010 TV series)

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth articles

Ratings for the pilot

Since the article is presumably about the TV series, not just the pilot, and since the information was uninformative to anyone not familiar with the ratings system, I removed the "Reception" section since all it contained was an unhelpful quotation from someone about one night's ratings. More pertinent to a "Reception" section might be views of critics, a clear idea of the ratings, when more episodes have aired, and maybe some reference to the reaction to the lead actor's mustache, etc, which I understand raised a ruckus among his fans. 72.229.43.147 (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was no reason for that or any other ratings information other than the overnight of total viewers. In that edit's defence, those weren't being included when it was added, but they're there now, and I agree; that edit served no real purpose. Most people don't know what a "share" is, and it would've only caused confusion to leave it. KnownAlias contact 01:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. I created the article when the show was still known as Code 58 and thus well before any ratings would be available. I didn't want to make more empty space in the episode list at that time. I really should have removed that when i added the ep 2 ratings.

The moustache is a 5th character in a sense. FOX has promo'd the show as starring "Whitford. Hanks. Moustache." I'm not fond of Whitford with the moustache but it is part of his look as an old school cop, kind of like Michael Imperioli in Life On Mars. In that sense the moustache makes sense. I don't know if i would call it a ruckus but it has not gone unnoticed. delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 03:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sudbury Star??

Why is the Sudbury Star being quoted alongside the Times and the Journal? It's nowhere near as reputable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.246.54 (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because i created the article when noöne had bothered to in months, i wrote about half the article as it presently reads, i wrote that entire section and yes The Sudbury Star is nowhere near as reputable as The New York Times but i liked the quote from Alessandra Stanley so i decided to forgo the poor reputation of TNYT and include her review (as i often do). The Sudbury Star is also the only non-American review quoted in the article. Maybe obscure to some but i grew up reading that newspaper. The Wall Street Journal is a very real article but i find it such a joke that a publication of it's genre would extensively review a tv show that i just had to include it. Doing so felt in keeping with the tone of the show itself. Furthermore there was no other reviewer who had such a perfect quote about the time-shifting narrative so the options were a substandard passing mention, no mention at all, or the quote from John Crook. Finally, a "my newspaper is better than yours; my critic is better than yours" arguement doesn't make The Sudbury Star an unreliable source; use of a variety of critical reviews for a composite is normally considered a good thing. So i went beyond the typical reviews compiled on MetaCritic. O well. I'm a punk. Get Jack to bust me. Over and over for each time i used the Modesto Bee or The Hartford Courant or the National Post or the Montreal Gazette or The Spokesman-Review or The New Zealand Herald or the Calgary Herald or The Sudbury Star in an article.
As a side note, The Sudbury Star article does it no justice here on WP; i've read microfilm of the newspaper from the 19th century. It went through a few name changes along the way but the newspaper is almost as old as the Wall Street Journal. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reputability of television reviewers is entirely subjective (except in the case of Alessandra Stanley for whom the NYT publishes a constant stream of corrections) and an interesting quote from a small newspaper is far more interesting than the umpteenth "And Ken Tucker Entertainment Weekly gave it a B-" insertion. - Dravecky (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that List of The Good Guys (2010 TV series) episodes be merged into The Good Guys (2010 TV series). I think that the content of both articles are short of enough that the content of List of The Good Guys (2010 TV series) episodes can easily fit into The Good Guys (2010 TV series) without it being too big. The television series The Good Guys only has twenty episodes so it's unnecessary to have another article for the list of episodes. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per WP:TVOVERVIEW: in general, single-season TV series should not have separate "List of [...] episodes" articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done! List of The Good Guys (2010 TV series) episodes merged into main The Good Guys (2010 TV series) article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]