Talk:9-1-1: Lone Star

Ratings/viewership
Does anyone know if there is RS for viewership info from streaming services for shows like this? It seems like that information would belong in the ratings section. 9-1-1: Lone Star is currently available on Hulu, which is how I found the program, but similar questions exist for other shows on other services such as Netflix and Disney+ and the like. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 20:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The original network for 9-1-1: Lone Star is Fox. The ratings that matters are only for the original network. Hulu isn't the original network. Hulu, Netflix, Disney+ have audience viewership with reliable sources, not ratings. —  Young Forever (talk)   21:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Award nomination
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 32nd GLAAD Media Awards

American Flags on Uniforms
I don’t know if anyone else has noticed that the American Flag patches on the uniforms are on backwards. As you face the flag the blue field should be be to the left not the right.

Paul Swanski 52 Canterbury Woods Ormond Beach, Florida 32174 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.216.61 (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Late reply. If the US flag is worn on the right shoulder of a uniform, the blue field should be on the right. (The same applies when a flag sticker is on a vehicle.) This is akin to the flag being on a staff and trailing behind the forward direction of travel. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 07:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Season final rating
According to deadline Hollywood https://deadline.com/2021/05/tv-ratings-2019-2021-final-rankings-nfl-ncis-masked-singer-cbs-fox-1234764734/ 9-1-1: Lone Star average 8.69 million viewers and ranked 17th and 16th in 18-49 demo with 1.5 rating. ਬੱਬੂ ਬਰਾੜ (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The TV broadcast season is not over as some TV series have not finish their seasons yet. Those are preliminary ratings and rankings as they are subject to change as it stated on the bottom up to Week 34. It is better to wait for the broadcast season is over. — Young Forever (talk)   05:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The TV broadcast season ended about two weeks ago. What we're seeing now are holdovers because the Covid pandemic delayed or shortened production for a great many shows. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

When does a "guest" role become a "recurring" role?
At what point would we move Barry Corbin from the "guest" section to the "recurring" section? In the most recent episode, he again appeared as Stuart Ryder, which makes his third appearance in three seasons. While I follow a few pages about certain TV series, I'm not familiar with the applicable rule for this. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 07:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no hard and fast rule. If you think it's appropriate, move him. Given his role, it seems likely we'll continue to see him.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  07:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

TVFanatic
I added reviews from TVFanatic to the Critical response section(in March 2022) because I thought their reviews were as good as any other, and of all the publications listed on the Rotten Tomatoes they were the only one that actually bothered to review all three seasons of this show. Also TVFanatic is actually reviewing the season as a whole, many of the other publications freely admit that they are only reviewing the show based on the first two episodes provided to critics as previews. Using any other reviews it would be difficult to show the same progression, a skeptical mixed response growing more positive over time.

An editor removed these reviews without any explanation replacing them with different reviews. I kept the reviews that had been added and restored the TVFanatic reviews. I did some copyediting (added a review from the TV critic at RogerEbert.com, pushed the Decider.com review down below the more reputable critics, added author names to references etc). Rather than remove only TVFanatic reviews, the other editor reverted my edits wholesale, and asserted that TVFanatic could not be used as a source of reviews as it was a blog and did not have a Wikipedia page. Not having a Wikipedia page does automatically make TVFanatic a bad source of TV reviews. The Wikipedia article for TVFanatic was removed in 2011 and yet the site is still going, and it is one of the many critics listed at Rotten Tomatoes. (If we're being strict then why include a review from Decider.com that isn't even listed by by Rotten Tomatoes?) TVFanatic does not seem to be a blog, it seems to be a small part of a big corporation called Mediavine. If there were other better critics available that had reviewed all three seasons then I could see an argument to choose them instead but when no other publication reviewed all three seasons, I do not see any good reason to exclude the reviews from TVFanatic. -- 109.79.167.102 (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Mediavine is an resource for "content creators" and TVFanatic is user generated content not professional reviewers. Spanneraol (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't whether TVFanatic has a Wikipedia page about it, it's that TVFanatic is a blog. Blogs are considered self-published sources and, except in rare circumstances, are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. See WP:BLOGS. We don't accept unreliable sources simply because we cannot find reliable sources. I have no opinion on whether Decider.com is reliable, but its reliability or lack thereof has nothing to do with TVFanatic's reliability. CodeTalker (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I found two discussions of TVFanatic in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Neither got much participation. Here and here. CodeTalker (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The person who deleted the reviews didn't bother to explain, and then made it seem as if their judgment was based on the lack of a Wikipedia page. I agree that if TVFanatic was a blog (or WP:SELFPUB) that would be a more substantive problem but it certainly didn't look like a blog to me. (Then again, many sites like Screenrant/Buzzfeed/Decider don't look like serious professionals either, and even though Rotten Tomatoes considers The New York Post a top critic it seems as if we are not allowed use anything from WP:NYPOST not even reviews, which are by definition only an opinion. It is all quite confusing.) Thank you CodeTalker for digging out those old discussions. I would have said TV Fanatic was marginally reliable, but that doesn't seem to be the consensus. While I'd prefer to keep the reviews from TVFanatic if you believe it is necessary to remove them would accept that and not restore them again.
 * It is more fundamentally important to me that this encyclopedia article serve readers with a better Critical overview, one I wish had been there when I started watching the show, and that gives a bit more than just the Rotten Tomatoes summary and the comments of a few critics who freely admit they only reviewed the first two episodes. I think based on the sources that it is fair to say the show gets better as it goes along, and I'd hope this encyclopedia article would be able to tell readers that. (I'm more skeptical of the show, the early episodes didn't grab me. In normal times I would not have continued watching. The set pieces get increasingly elaborate, although never as over-the-top as its predecessor. Most of the characters get better.) Are any of the reviews listed on Rotten Tomatoes for season 2 and season 3 good enough? How can we make the Reception section better? -- 109.79.167.98 (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed TV Fanatic's reviews a long time ago because TV Fanatic is a blog. My mistake was that I did not provide an explanation initially.
 * You wrote, "I disagree with the assertion that the reviews from TV fanatic are not allowed (having a Wikipedia article is not the be all and end all) but even if there is a consensus to remove them wholesale reverting my edits shows a lack of good faith. (Why include a review from Decider.com, they are less notable than TVFanatic, not listed on a Rotten Tomatoes)," but, at the same time, Decider is a website (derived from the New York Post) which is frequently used in "Reception" in many pages, which never bothered any editor until now, and is a "Tomatometer-approved publication" according to Rotten Tomatoes itself, which is why Decider is used.
 * I did explain why TV Fanatic could not be considered at some point, it is not about having a page on wikipedia, it is because the website had a page which has been deleted because it is a blog, ("TV Fanatic is NOT notable. The website's page on Wikipedia has been deleted because TV Fanatic is a blog: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Fanatic"), so I did provide an explanation when you added TV Fanatic's reviews again. The reason the page was deleted is because TV Fanatic is a blog.
 * "How can we make the Reception section better?" I have been working on this page for a long time, adding all the reviews and accolades on this page, expect what Texas Monthly stated (I think this is the only exception). I do not understand what has to be done to improve "Reception." With or without TV Fanatic, there are enough reviews from media that are well known to build this section.
 * Your edits do not align with WP:RECEPTION. You did not only add TV Fanatic reviews again, you rewrote what I provided because you did not like how I have penned some of these reviews, to write, "Joel Keller of Decider said if you loved the original 9-1-1 show you'll love this too," this sentence sounds like a "subjective claims in Wikipedia's voice," which is forbidden. Dealing with TV Fanatic, you only quoted the website (and you always write "mixed reviews" when this blog rated the series), which is highly discouraged as well.
 * "but even if there is a consensus to remove them wholesale reverting my edits shows a lack of good faith." I will remove TV Fanatic's reviews, because Spanneraol, CodeTalker, and I explained why TV Fanatic's reviews cannot be used. There is no "lack of good faith" and I find that disrespectful for you to say that. Some individuals do not agree with you, so they are bad people ? I do my best on each page I edit and I have been editing on Wikipedia for years, I always work hard to improve articles and focus mainly on "Reception," and this page is not an exception. If you really wanted to improve this page so much, you would have looked for all these reviews and awards like I did. You are showing your lack of good faith thinking you can ignore Wikipedia's rules, ignoring the fact that blogs cannot used, WP:RECEPTION, and by ignoring what other users state. 129.194.0.241 (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I restored then removed the only the reviews from TVFanatic. (Wholesale reverting edits also removed a different review I added amongst other things.) I think there are bigger problems with the Reception section than just including or excluding the reviews from TVFanatic, and I thought I'd made that clear already but I'll try to explain it again more clearly.
 * I have been working on this page for a long time, adding all the reviews Let us be clear about the order of events, when I added the three reviews from TVFanatic (one for each season) there was only Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Texas monthly, that was March. Later, in July ip129 added some reviews (while removing the reviews I had added without any explanation). I do not understand what has to be done to improve "Reception." Please read my comments again. Please read the reviews you referenced. As often happens with Rotten Tomatoes they use reviews from critics that have only seen the first two episodes and then (misleadingly) presenting it as the score for the whole season. (Many Wikipedia articles do this, but that doesn't make it good.) Even if you think that's fine, the Reception section does not say anything about season 2 or season 3, and it would be a failure if this encyclopedia article did not say anything about the rest of the show, beyond the first few episodes. It would be an improvement and serve readers to give some indication that the show got better (or stayed much the same, or whatever the reliable sources support). Some individuals do not agree with you, so they are bad people ? That's a straw man argument, I never said anything like that. My disagreement is with the actions taken, not if someone is a good person or a bad person (bad people sometimes do good things, and good people sometimes do bad things). My issue was with the action, someone removed information that was referenced (to critics listed by Rotten Tomatoes) but failed to show good faith and explain why they were removing those sources, while also adding a mix of reviews (most good, one not so good, Decider.com that wasn't even listed at Rotten Tomatoes). I removed TV Fanatic's reviews a long time ago it was July 18, 2022, less than a fortnight ago. I do my best While I appreciate the efforts of ip129 to paraphrase the reviews entirely in their own words, I thought it could be improved. If you read what was written out loud, you might notice that it lacked specificity and was somewhat repetitive, and I do not think the unnecessary rephrasing of the sentence from Texas Monthly was even grammatically correct. I thought a few short quotes would better represent the show. (I also did boring things like fill in author names to references, remove some duplication. I moved the reviews from trade journals Variety and THR up because they are more reliable and trustworthy sources. I added a review from RogerEbert.com which is one of the "top critics" listed by Rotten Tomatoes.) My preference would have been to remove the review from Decider.com entirely but instead of "the series succeeds to target fans of 9-1-1 across its writing" I thought it would be more succinct to include the main point (if you liked that you'll like this) of the article. I'd be happier to throw out the review from Decider.com entirely. I have been editing on Wikipedia for years That is another fallacious argument, it should make no difference how long you have been editing, if anything it means an experienced editor should have absolutely have been following the WP:SIMPLE rules and known better to explain why they were deleting sources, and not be at all surprised if their contribution are rewritten. I'll take being rewritten over being reverted. In fact I hope the Reception section will be rewritten, more details added to references, reviews added or removed, and that it might actually tell readers something useful about seasons 2 and 3. -- 109.79.167.98 (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it is clear I have overreacted while you only had good intentions. I was mostly triggered about the "lack of good faith" part, which is why I said I work hard on every page, thinking you were stating I put no effort when it comes to provide good (faith) edits and, that you were trying to insult me. Still, I apologize for being unpleasantly rough across this discussion, I totally understand your point of view, and did not realize how much you actually contributed/cared for this page. 129.194.0.223 (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Misunderstandings can be avoided by following the WP:SIMPLE rules and explaining your changes with an edit summary. (Making smaller separate edits also helps.) Deleting sources without any explanation seemed like bad faith. Your attempts to improve the Reception section were in good faith. It was the failure to provide a meaningful edit summary while deleting that was the problem. Deleting is too easy.
 * I still think the Reception section is deeply flawed because it is almost entirely based on reception from people who (as far as I can tell) only saw the first two episodes. For older TV shows there were reviews of the whole seasons when the DVDs were released, but I haven't been able to find anything like that for this show yet. be Maybe if we had some prose to go with the Ratings section (based on reliable sources of course) it would help to explain that this show did a surprisingly good job of holding on to its audience. (I still think the main show is way better, but they probably spent twice as much on all the big stunts.) -- 109.79.173.104 (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)