Talk:Sun Records (TV series)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Other articles only use two places due to most sourcing ratings from the shitty zap2it site. There is absolutely no reason to misrepresent the source by your forced rounding. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Other articles only use two places due to most sourcing ratings from the shitty zap2it site" --- Not true, basically every other cable channel shows' sources are from Showbuzz Daily, and round to two decimal places. On another note, ratings are also provided from sites other than "zap2it" that are rounded, in fact, ShowBuzz is the only site that does not round. "Zap2it" is not the only site to round. per Jonathanjoseph81

Actually Zap2it only use two places for broadcast ratings. There cable ratings are three, which shows how inconsistent they are. Futoncritic also use three. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cable ratings have three decimal points on TVBTN (and ShowBuzz for that matter) because most shows on cable do not score above a million viewers (above a million is three numbers(rounded), so when a cable show receives under a million viewers, they list three numbers; matching three numbers listed for shows that score above a million viewers), so the three decimal places are needed for rounding, etc. TVBTN simply does not take the time to round, nor does ShowBuzz. Also, when the program scores low enough, ShowBuzz will also only use two decimal points, when clearly they could find this third number we are discussing. SpoilerTV, TVRG, official press releases, etc, all use rounded numbers. per Jonathanjoseph81

As stated Zap2it aka TVBTN use two decimals for broadcast show because broadcast shows rate higher. Showbuzz and Futoncritic use three places for both broadcast and cable. Certain editors here have used that as some kind of stupid guideline to round cable numbers. As for press sites, they don't count as they are merely quoting figures in their review of a certain show's performance and aren't a reliable source for ratings. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There is absolutely no reason to misrepresent the source by your forced rounding." -- I am not "forcing" rounding, it is a way of writing the viewers that is done for basically every show, no matter the source. per Jonathanjoseph81

No you are doing it only because US broadcast shows here take their figures from two decimal rounded sites, which seems to establish some kind of two decimal standard amount certain editors. All non-US sources also use three places. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"All non-US sources also use three places." This is not a "non-US source". Going by what you say here, it makes sense, the formatting for US shows are two decimal places. per Jonathanjoseph81

No zap2it are the ones who started US broadcast shows @ two places and certain editors have used that as some sort of policy which it is not. PS, please indent and sign your posts. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have no consensus for these changes, you've come onto the page attempting to force your edits through. Learn to work in the spirit of Wikipedia. Especially your removal of the ratings table which has absolutely no merit. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@82.15.11.237: There's no consensus or policy for forced rounding and misrepresenting the source figures. The first ep was simulcast over three channels, so all three figures should be included to represent total viewers. As for DVR 7 day figures the show is rating so low that you lucky to have them for one ep, which makes the section pointless and of no value. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathanjoseph81: I'm also suspicious that you are editing under 82.15.11.237 to force your point. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@124.197.3.196: I AM NOT editing under that IP ADDRESS (which is impossible to change), that IS NOT ME. I don't appreciate you dragging me into this, when I've dropped this discussion. I am in no way forcing a point (it is not me for starters), I've dropped this, if anyone is forcing a point it is you who cannot drop this and wrongly accused me of trying to force a point that was never me to begin with. --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathanjoseph81: Sure it just coincidence that an IP edits the next day are inline with yours and the same IP has had no contribs prior to March 28. Also your not me IP seems to revert minutes after you posting. You have just proved you are one in the same. If Jonathanjoseph81 or not you 82.15.11.237 revert one more time I will report this. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're not the same person, and you have no evidence to support such spurious claims. I've repeatedly told you to discuss these changes and gain consensus. You don't want to do this, for whatever reason. I find your behavior unacceptable, learn to act in the spirit of co-operation rather than trying to force through changes without discussion. For one, I've told you that Nick at Nite and TV Land are re-runs. You didn't listen. I've told you that the original airing is CMT, you didn't listen. You wanted to alter the decimal place, when the table didn't have this previously. Again, you didn't listen. You removed the ratings table to further your agenda, when I restored you tried to hide it. You're not acting in the spirit of co-operation and page building. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you are first responding to a ping for Jonathanjoseph81. And Nick at Nite and TV Land are simulcasts not re-runs so they are valid figures. The DVR table was hidden until it can be filled with more than one eps figures which wont happen since the show rates so low. The table is pointless with figures for only one ep. As for rounding there is NO valid reason for misrepresenting them. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@124.197.3.196: I am not going to say this again. WE ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON. STOP THIS. It is not my fault that there are TWO people who have the same thoughts and feelings about how to manage a page. MILLIONS of people visit this site, TWO people can try to make the SAME change. I HAVE DONE NOTHING TO PROVE WE ARE THE SAME PERSON BECAUSE WE ARE NOT. I know it is shocking when literally the entire rest of the encyclopedia uses two decimal places that there's more than one person who takes exception to this.--Jonathan Joseph (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathanjoseph81: Based on the discussions being only seconds apart on User_talk:Jonathanjoseph81 and User_talk:82.15.11.237 seems to further prove you are writing both yourself in some vain attempt to prove you are not operating both. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are being ridiculous, and you need to stop. TWO PEOPLE CAN BE ON THE SAME WEBSITE AROUND THE SAME TIME. Stop trying to force YOUR crazy accusations, you are wrong. I AM NOT GOING TO SAY THIS AGAIN, WE ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON. You can say whatever nonsense you'd like, but the ratings must be in the consensus format. --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly he's not here to work constructively with other editors Jonathan. I've restored the status quo several times pending discussion as with standard with pages in dispute, but he's more focused on throwing out random accusations and refusing to discuss his bold changes. If he reverts again, I'm just going to take a step back from the page and let him get on with it. I'll fix it when he becomes bored with acting like a petulant child. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, according to WP:STATUSQUO "During a dispute, until a consensus is established, the status quo should remain (except in biographies of living people, where contentious material should be removed)." 82.15.11.237 (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no policy for forced rounding exists, so stop altering the linked source figures under your new ID for editing here, Jonathan. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus you don't know the dif between

re-run. 124.197.3.196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I know exactly what a simulcast and a rerun is, so don't drag me into your unrelated dispute with the other user - I never mentioned either of those terms. Unsurprisingly, you seem unable to comprehend that the simple sentence the other user posted was not a policy on forced rounding, but a policy on maintaining the status quo during a dispute. The last thing you make me want to do is have a serious discussion with you when you keep returning to your infuriatingly false accusations, so from now on I will simply ignore your comments and continue to revert to the status quo per the policy every time you make this change.--Jonathan Joseph (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't get your way so you tried to force your edits under your IP. Now you are trying to use

WP:STATUSQUO to force your edits through. And gone back to using your login to do it. And the joke you even admit there's nothing that promotes your forced rounding. And if you knew the diff between a simulcast and a rerun then the other ratings would be removed. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

You really need to stop edit warring. We have enough grounds to report you. You also need to stop with these unfounded allegations. We are not the same person, you have no proof to suggest otherwise either. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of proof. It's all detailed here, Jonathan. And you started the edit war when you didn't get your way. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have nothing. Both me and Jonathan have simply restored the page to a state prior to you forcing your edits onto it. Frankly you have shown no desire to engage in intelligent conversation and have thrown nothing but accusations our way because you can't get your own way. And with that being said, I won't be speaking to you any further. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trooper1005: neutral encyclopedic style? To be neutral, would be by not rounding already low figures from the quoted source. Doing so lowers the value of the figures to the reader. Also two places would acceptable if it was a broadcast show rating over a million viewers, but it's not. Also you didn't comment on the forced exclusion of simulcast figures for the pilot. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do if this user doesn't want to change or alter his behavior? We have asked him repeatedly to respect the status quo, but he has broken 3RR multiple times to try and force his edits through. He has thrown random sock puppet allegations at us with no evidence to support his claims. This absolutely needs admin intervention, it has gone on long enough. I've read through some of the rules here, and the onus is on him to gain consensus, and until then, the status quo should remain when a page is in dispute. He won't respect that, see the main page. I've acted in good faith with my reverting of him to maintain the status quo. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think first of all, take a step back. A

consensus has clearly been reached here now. Let's assume that the consensus will be followed first before any further action is taken. -=Troop=- (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

And this from their contrib history or lack of as well as writing style. Is obviously a sock puppet for Jonathanjoseph81. I wouldn't push it if I were you. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I do acknowledge that both unrounded and rounded numbers are used on Wikipedia, this depends entirely on the editors on the page. If there's an established style for ratings, generally speaking that remains. Because of this, I don't believe there's a right or wrong answer on if ratings should be rounded, but it should be discussed on a talk page if the norm is deviated from. He doesn't want to do this. 82.15.11.237 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no norm, only the habit of seeing two places because of Zap2It sources being largely used on broadcast show articles. 124.197.3.196 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]