Talk:Finding Prince Charming

Problems in lede
This sentence: "Robert Sepúlveda Jr. is cast as the "Prince Charming", who is a founder of an award-winning interior design firm in Atlanta" contains false info. It indicates that the character "Prince Charming" founded the design firm, which is not so: "..."Prince Charming", who is a founder..." Sepulveda allegedly founded the firm.

Also, to say that someone is "a" founder is to say there's more than one founder. Sepulveda alone allegedly founded the firm.

Finally, a reliable source is needed to substantiate the claim that the firm is award-winning. Sepulveda's self-published site is not a reliable source for this content. 69.5.56.2 (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. A founder doesn't mean more than one.
 * 2. There does not have to be a citation in the lede that are elsewhere.
 * 3. Instead of deleting the information, try re-wording it, otherwise, you are not helping, you're creating a problem.
 * Thank you.
 * Chase (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The content on Bass and Sepulveda is neither contentious nor controversial, so I removed the unnecessary citations. I changed the content on Sepulveda to reflect his primary occupation. 69.5.56.2 (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop using ",000" for ratings
The source doesn't use it with standard practice using the larger unit in the header. Also adding the pointless suffix gives the impression the figures aren't calculated in thousands which they are due to the low sample size. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I explained to you earlier, it is normal practice to either round to millions with decimal places, or if all viewership numbers are under one million, write the full average viewership without rounding. Nielsen ratings are publically released rounded to the nearest thousand, however paying customers see more exact figures. For ratings available to the public, the figures are rounded. Your issue seems to be the format of how viewership is displayed in this article, and the typically accepted formats are either in the millions with decimals, or the full number written (including the zeros). -- Whats new?(talk) 00:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What "" said. Chase (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the issue is ",000" is unsourced. You are saying you know the value under a thousand is nill and if it were it is unsourced. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that, and in fact the unrounded under 1,000 viewership for any program would be unsourced. The publically available figure is rounded to the nearest thousand, and that is what can be cited and thus is what should be added to this article. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know that adding an unknown and unsourced bogus value means you are misleading the reader and making the source unusable in justifying the figure. When quote a source, the content must exactly reflect that source. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're not understanding here? For episode 3, the article has the figure at 196,000. The source lists the viewership at 196,000. The only difference is the source chooses to display the number without the following zeros (noting they are rounded to (000s) at the top of the column), and Wikipedia articles do display the zeros. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What? It stated 128 	FINDING PRINCE CHARMING 	LOGO 	9:00 PM 	60 	0.09 	196 with a column heading of (000s) which is short for (thousands). Why does this even require a debate, when ",000" is unsourced?!?!? 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

,000 is in the source. Look at the top of the table in the source. The column header reads "P2+ (000s)". Thus ",000s" is sourced. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What???? It's a heading saying the figures are in thousands, not the value below a thousand is 000. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, P18-49 column doesn't give the unit but it's a percentage. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what it is saying! They don't have numbers below 1,000 for any program published on that webpage. They only have figures rounded. There is no source with unrounded figures. Thus, the source for viewership, as you yourself pointed out, is 128 FINDING PRINCE CHARMING LOGO 9:00 PM 60 0.09 196 with a column heading of (000s). The source therefore puts the viewership figure at 196,000. That is the number of viewers that can be reliabily sourced, and that is what should be included in the article. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The source cites it as 196k or 0.196M, as the heading states 000s not +1000 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct, when written in full is 196,000. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 196k or 0.196M is not the same as 196,000. 196,000 in short form is 196.000k or 0.196000M. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Or 196.0k or 0.1960M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No that's not correct. The figure is 196k or 0.196 million or 196,000. They're all the same. The correct formatting for Wikipedia in this case is 196,000. That is how it will be written, as with all viewership sections on Wikipedia articles. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No most articles use (millions) and prefix with 0. because you don't know what the UNSOURCED value below thousand is, you only can use ,000 or .0 when you know it's ,000 or .0. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, not correct. Millions is used when there are large figures over 1 million. This program has no ratings anywhere near 1 million, thus it is appropriate to write the figure in full. Anyway, I don't care to keep repeating myself. I'll let others contribute to this discussion from here, to see what other people think is appropriate. I don't think you've made a strong case for your point of view. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I said most articles use it and wont use thousands on lower rated shows to keep the column heading consistent. And  you only can write a figure in full when know the full figure. And UNSOURCED content doesn't need a discussion, just the fact that two editors keep putting UNSOURCED content back. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They're not unsourced. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Quoted by you They don't have numbers below 1,000 for any program published on that webpage, where's the source? 119.224.39.131 (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is rounded to the nearest thousand. The issue you have is not the number itself, it is how it is displayed. My argument is is should be published in full as 196,000. Your argument is to exclude the zeros. I'll let a consensus form, but I can't keep making the same points over and over. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * FULL FIGURES are not sourced, so you can't use FULL FIGURES!!!!! 119.224.39.131 (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The figure is 196,000 in the source I've quoted. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with User:Whats new?. The ratings are reported to the nearest thousand. As such, given the table states the show achieved 196 and the column reports in thousands, the show had an average viewership of 196,000. This indicates that the raw numbers may have been between 195,500–196,499. This is just simple math. Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's an average viewership of 196k, the unreported and unsourced thousands aren't provided so you can't use 196,000. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The reference itself does not say that the show had 196k, it says it had an audience of 196 at the 1,000 level. Therefore, 196 multiplied by 1,000 = 196,000. Just because the reference isn't explicit in saying the show recorded 196,000 viewers, doesn't mean it doesn't in fact say it (just look at the column heading). And besides, you yourself are saying it was watched by 196k, which according to the Wikipedia article 1000 (number), k is prefix for 1,000, meaning you yourself agree it was watched by 196,000 people. This is a moot discussion. Forbesy 777 (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The suffix does not define the factional value. A full figure is a whole number so it does define it. This is why the published sources that post figures in thousands don't list whole numbers. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is common practice to list viewers in millions even if the show is always below 1M. It is NOT common to use implied whole numbers. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)