Talk:2007–08 United States network television schedule/Archive 1

FUN
FUN ==== FUN == Can someone tell me what this "FUN" thing is? JpGrB 21:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fall?
When does Fall begin? I mean, when will the 2007-08 schedule actually start? 172.207.73.64 12:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

-September for some shows, October, November I believe


 * The Official start of the season is September 24th. But, obviously, some shows premiere on different days and weeks.Jamie jca 17:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dancing With the Stars Results Show
Can we settle the issue on the date of the premiere of the Dancing With the Stars Results Show? The show normally plays on Tuesday, but it actually PREMIERES on a Wednesday at a special day and time. As we are listing PREMIERE dates, can we please keep it as 9/26 and stop changing it to 9/25? Thank you.

Why would we delete this page?
We have this page for every other season. Why is it being considered for deletion? 12.160.150.101 19:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Jason

Dates of Shows That Have Premiered
Should they be deleted? --Yankeesrj12 01:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see they are gone from previous years, but maybe those never had them. I would vote to keep them until at least the last premiere date happens (which appears to be Scrubs on 10/25) in case someone wants to know when a show started this season.  But I'm also not sure how the "Fall Follow-up Schedule" will be generated and if the premiere dates should permanently remain in the original fall schedule at the top.  --Mtjaws 02:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I vote to keep them (or return them at this point). When the various shows premiered is interesting historical information.

Question about the page
Should the schedules for each individual network be deleted? I means its kind of stupid to have them listed twice, this is the only season that has it like that. --Yankeesrj12 21:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The schedules for each individual network are useful for looking at things in a network specific context instead of just the overall schedule. I don't think there is any harm in keeping them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.74.48.47 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Avoid Clutter similar to the 2006-07 United States network television schedule article
To avoid general untidyness and clutter similar to the 2006-07 United States network television schedule article, I suggest formatting the tables on this article like the formatting in the below example. Obviously, at midseason another section would be added to the existing tables for the midseason schedule. And also, all the other seasons with many scheduling changes are formatted like this, see 2004-05 and 2005-06.

The below example is for the existing Sunday scheduling:


 * Also, for Mondays


 * And Tuesday


 * Wednesdays

Jamie jca 19:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thursdays

Jamie jca 19:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fridays

Saturdays

Jamie jca 20:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do like how this will eliminate much of the duplication in the two Fall sections. When a reader visits the page, they're probably going to read the first section (thinking it is current), but several parts have already changed due to network changes.  This simplifies the page, yet still reflects both the original and current schedules.  Just make sure the networks are listed in the same order in all sections.  Good idea.  --Mtjaws 20:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't need to have an edit war between styles. Both have their advantages and they can be combined into the best possible format.  Jamie, why did you decide to use "FFU" instead of the self-explanatory "Fall Follow-up" used on the Talk Page examples?  Also, a few simple sentences above Sunday are needed to explain what is being seen/meant by the extra rows for each network.  --Mtjaws 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly I dont think the 2006-2007 schedule is cluttered, I actually think its better. Plus all other pages (excludes 2006-2007) dont show mid-season. Instead of completly changing it how about, we just simply do this:

2007 official fall schedule New fall series are highlighted in bold. '''This schedule was set by networks before the official start of the 2007 fall season. However the page is not the current schedule, to see that please see the fall follow up schedule'''

2007 fall follow-up schedule This schedule is the current network schedule, which was last updated on November 2, 2007. Sunday

what do you think? --Yankeesrj12 21:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I like these clarifying notes included above the two Fall schedules. They tell the reader which is current and when it was last changed.  Great idea.  --Mtjaws 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

At risk (of cancellation) section
I think this is inherently POV-ish, and could wind up being a dumping ground for speculation. The one entry that is there as of today is unsourced with a rationalized opinion; even if sourced that would be nebulous, because a sourced opinion does not validate the "at risk" categorization. Given the reactionary nature of the industry, the at-risk category tends to be skipped entirely, in some cases after only one episode&mdash;Twigboy 20:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you think that. The section is there for people to see what shows are in danger of being cancelled.  In order for a specific show to be added to that section there has to be a good reason for it to be there (Example: The Next Great American Band- Ratings below 3 million viewers, putting it in danger or getting cancelled) Plus FOX hasnt renewed a Friday show in 7 years (TheFutonCritic), which is a pretty good reason for the show to be added to the section.  Now if somebody just put a show there with no reason it should be deleted. I know it's kind of a silly section but I think it is useful to the section --Yankeesrj12 21:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So in order to be nonspeculative, whose criteria do we follow? Otherwise, we suppose to know what the network executives' intentions are, which is, by definition, subjective. Yes, 3 million viewers is very low by broadcast network standards, but without objective criteria, we could put the entire Fox Friday lineup in there because, as you state, Fox hasn't renewed a Friday show in 7 years. I would accept: Network executive X said, "if we don't see an improvement in two weeks, the show is axed." But that never happens.&mdash;Twigboy 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay then how about we change the name? Instead of AT RISK, how about SHOWS WITH LOW RATINGS? Then the criteria can be, shows with exceptionally low ratings from other shows on the network. It's just an idea, because I think we need something to signify shows that are in trouble. --Yankeesrj12 03:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a possible problem with doing that would be for example, on The CW Smallville gets around 4.5 million but Gossip Girl gets around 2 million. If you think of it percentage wise, I thats about a 45% difference which is noticablly lower, but it was the first show of the season to be picked up for a full season.


 * Also, a show with low ratings is quite hard to define. For example, CSI on CBS gets around 20-25 million viewers but The Big Bang Theory gets around 8.5 million, but the latter isn't at risk of cancellation or in anykind of ratings trouble.


 * Also, some shows don't do as well in total viewers as they do in the 18-49 demographic, NBC's Thursday sitcoms for example. The Office, for example, gets around 4.5 in 18-49 but only gets around 8-9 million viewers but Samantha Who? on ABC gets around 14-15 million viewers and a 4.5 in 18-49. Jamie jca 22:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like the idea of a "LOW RATINGS" section because it's hard to determine what is too low, as the others have stated right above me. Low ratings are subjective so they aren't the best way to hint at any risk.  The only solution I see is to have a "ON HIATUS" section that lists shows that have been pulled, but not officially cancelled.  Those are the shows truly "at risk" because they are in limbo and neither cancelled nor picked up.  --74.236.90.215 02:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC) (Didn't know I wasn't logged in.) --Mtjaws 02:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I like that idea, it's a good solution. --Yankeesrj12 15:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Columns for New/Returning/Cancelled Shows
Seeing how this formatting has been reverted many times now, we need to decide if the sections listing the new, returning, and cancelled shows for each network (when compared to 06-07 season) should be one listed column or three columns. My vote is for three columns because it pulls the data in tighter, eliminates empty/white space, and makes the page "shorter", yet barely effects any word wrap due to long entries. The single column is adequate, but the three columns make it look better, in my opinion. This is your chance to state your opinion so we aren't swapping back and forth. This info basically never changes now that the season has started, so we shouldn't waste time on it. Let's decide and get back to focusing on the stuff that will be changing throughout the season. --Mtjaws 23:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mtjaws on the reasons why three columns is better, but there might be a problem with consistency compared to previous years. After all, people have been reverting the tables that incorporate the fall and winter schedules for that reason. ZanderSchubert 03:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the solution, lets make last year and this year the same. Take all the new ideas from this year before all the reverts and apply it to both. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 06:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

TBC/TBA
I think most everyone looking at a page like this knows what TBA means but I had to look up TBC and wade through the disambiguation page to find out it meant 'to be confirmed' because all I could think of was 'to be continued'. I can't think of any advantage to not using the familiar TBA and would suggest it be globally changed.
 * I agree that "TBA" should be used because the info has not been announced, but the TBCs will all be replaced shortly with the actual programs. TBC means it is waiting for confirmation, but there's nothing even there to confirm, so TBA makes a lot more sense because we are waiting for the announcements.  Thankfully, it is only a temporary placeholder.  --Mtjaws (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

By network
Could we please update this section with new information? - Royboycrashfan (Not logged in)

P.S. Why isn't Phenomenon mentioned anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.124.218 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)