Talk:List of Detroit 1-8-7 episodes/Archive 1

Ratings inconsistency
The type of ratings used in the table needs to remain consistent. Currently, episode one has fast affiliate overnight ratings (9.75 ), and episode two has finals numbers (8.712 ). Please decide on which type of ratings will be used, and stick to that one type throughout the table. These are not the same type of ratings data and they should not be used interchangeably. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review the sources and what is out there to pick from for referencing before lecturing. I think we also had this discussion before somewhere else and in case you forgot i am on the side you are taking here :P That was a clever observation... however if you get the finals from  the only change noted is the 18-49 rating/share going from 2.4/7 to 2.3/7. The completely unacceptable pifeedback forum has slightly different total viewers, 9.342M vs 9.75M at TVBTN. If a reliable source can be found that publishes the comprehensive final numbers for episode 1 then by all means do change it. I haven't found such a source for episode 1 and with only two episodes available to reference the viewer numbers for it is 100/50 split on sourcing using overnight vs final and i prefer the latter. If the trend ends up being overnights are what is readily available for most or all episodes and only select episodes have finals available for referencing then i would revise the list. More than two episodes need to be available to establish a trend ;) Cheers   delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 08:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

the 14th & 15th episodes
The episodes have been referenced. Always have been. The press releases form ABC come out roughly a week or so after the photos for the episode are available. The photos have caption which contain title, the episode summary, and the air date. When i use those as a reference the writer and director remains blank as it is not available at that time. When the press release becomes available i change the reference to the press release and add in the writer and director. When ABC changes the schedule i update the reference and the air date. To ensure anyone who edits has all of the info available to them i even retain the original reference in a comment in which i also explain why the reference and the info visible when reading the article has changed. The reason for the change of the 13th episode to two weeks later was even notable enough that it has mention in the visible article when simply reading it. And it is comprehensively referenced too. ABC has the 14th episode scheduled for 8 February and the 15th episode scheduled for 15 February. What baffles me is that apparently the press release is acceptable for the title, writer, director, and as a basis for my very short summary, but is unacceptable for the air date. How is the press release both reliable and unreliable for the very same thing? Might the problem be that one is reading the reference for my comment about the change rather than the new reference for the episode? That would explain the issue with episode 14. As to episode 15 i can not come to any understanding of what the issue is. The 15th episode was sourced to a photo caption (which does list the air date for the episode). http://abcmedianet.com/web/display/display_item.aspx?item=ph/htm/122983_9630.htm That was changed to the press release which is now available and i added the writer and director. Still there is issue with the air date. For the sake of avoiding excessing referencing the article has always been 1-reference-per-episode and if something was not supported by that reference it was blank or another reference was found to replace it. The list of press releases for Detroit 1-8-7 can be found at http://abcmedianet.com/web/showpage/showpage.aspx?global_id=003059&type=asset&typecode=pr Do note that the column with dates on the right is the date of release for the press release and not the scheduled broadcast date which is found in the press release title in the form of (# of month / # of day). Tracer9999 has been removing the air dates for these episodes with claims of original research, not supported by reference, crystal ball violation, etc. I have asked QuasyBoy for his opinion on the matter as one of the other regular contributors to the article. Also receiving invites to this are MikeWazowski and Tracer9999. Others are of course also welcome to comment. delirious &  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 06:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * rather then repeat myself.. ill repost my post to you.. the episodes HAVE NOT AIRED SO THERE IS NO ORIGINAL AIR DATE UNTIL THEY DO.  they are tentative air dates only...like 10th time Ive said this and you seem to miss it every time for some reason or just gloss over it in your responses.  also episode 14th says nothing about it being rescheduled for the 8th..It may be.. but unsourced it is ORIGINAL RESEARCH.  your source says the 1st.. you deemed it will be rescheduled for the 8th on your own or neglected to source it correctly.  your source is only for the first.. regardless.. as the have not aired they cannot have an "original air date"...that is a past tense phrase..it should be scheduled air date if anything and only if sourced correctly...  my orig post is below..


 * "further to reading the references before saying they are fake how about realise that i created and wrote most of the article as well as being one of the main writers for the main article"


 * Editing or creating an article does not make you own the article. Im not sure what you are are talking about me "targeting" your edits, don't be paranoid. I reverted the air dates because they changed with the delay, from the scheduled date. It is original research (which is not allowed on wikipedia) to assume it will air at another date the next week without providing an accurate UP TO DATE source on it. Its also not an "original air date" until it actually airs. until it does.. it is a tentative air date that can change due to a whole bunch of reasons, such as the last two weeks the show was bumped. Another editor has also reverted you, explaining this quite clearly in the edit summary, yet you continue to re-add the info anyway despite what other editors feel.. and original research in the comments of the article don't make up for that. Again, creating the article does not mean you now own and have full editorial control over it. The fact is.. the dates are not original airdates they are scheduled or tentative air dates.. thats a big difference. wikipedia is not a crystal ball. also your reverting the tvbythenumbers info is innaccurate as just like a sourced reviewer reviewing the show has varied opinions so does tvbythenumbers method of determining possible cancellation, which are based on the numbers provided by nielson which the networks use to determine wether to keep a show and are just as valid as what joe blow at the times thinks of the show.. Hope this helps, no Im not targeting your posts, you are but another name among thousands on here I see every day..I had to look at the articles edit history to even see who you are. -Tracer9999 (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * looking at your list link to the press releases I see where you made your mistake.. you did not source the airdate correctly.. you used these as your source.. http://abcmedianet.com/assets/pr/html/011611_03.html and http://abcmedianet.com/assets/pr/html/011411_09.html, where both list FEB 1st as the air date NOT the 8th. the correct url according to the pr page is http://abcmedianet.com/assets/pr/html/012411_04a.html which references the updated airdate.. none of that however, changes the fact they cannot have an original air date when it has not even aired yet.  The show could be pulled tomorrow for all we know especially with huge ratings issue the show has.  the dates are tentative. -Tracer9999 (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, i indented Tracer's comments. http://abcmedianet.com/assets/pr/html/011611_03.html contains the second paragraph which says in full, "Note: This episode replaces "Beaten / Cover Letter."". That press release is noted in a comment as a reference for the comment itself, not as a reference for the start date. And well i do have to agree and it is why i brought it here. You are so adament that it is wrong and i that it is right that clearly someone is missing something somewhere. Apparently i pasted in the wrong url / title when i had a half dozen press releases open - i put in the one that was already there instead of putting in the updated one. That explains episode 14. Sorry. I honestly didn't notice i had pasted in the same one that i was taking out when sourcing the rescheduling. Thank you for noticing that. The catch in this now is that i can't correct it to the proper press release without violating 3rr. Someone else will have to or it will have to wait. As to your objection to air dates listed for the future.... i) it is the standard practice so if you object you will have to take this to the project level (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television) or the Manual of Style (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (television)) but not a single show's talk page as you are wanting changes to a widely used standard not a local variant; ii) they are in the references and barring my pasting in the wrong reference by mistake as i now see i did with ep 14 then they are current and reliably sourced; iii) if the show is cancelled tomorrow then the episode list will be updated tomorrow to reflect the change but for today the network says they are broadcasting those episodes on those dates. And that is what i have to go do to List of Chase episodes as i just noticed that within the last day NBC has removed that show from its schedule and episodes 14-18 are not going to be broadcast any time soon if at all on NBC though it still might be shown in Canada or the UK. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 10:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is what i do when a schedule is changed from what was previously announced. Should a similar fate befall Detroit 1-8-7 it would have a similar edit made to its episode list.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 10:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

bumped airdates and speculation
lol delirious.. you confuse me. do you just look for an argument? I let you get away with adding future "original airdates" even know the show have not aired yet.. then I look the other way while you speculate that the shows will air the next next week when they may never air or as has happened about 50% of the time this year continue to be bumped.. then someone else updates the dates after the show is bumped for the charlie sheen interview on 20/20. You go all rules and discount my totally valid source because it is not your sepecific source you prefer.. (tvbtn is a valid source scheduling and ratings go hand in hand) and start tagging the dates like its going out of style .. telling me "you are on: those dates you insist upon, NOT supported by ABC at this time and TVBTN is NOT reliable for non-ratings info"..and therefore not verifyable..all because I deleted an empty unsourced 18th episode box you had on the page that has not even been announced...

so here we are full circle.. you dont want the dates you would have added in the first place.. so Ive now removed them because you are right we SHOULD NOT speculate on future airdates and wether the show will air on that date or at all..which has been the whole point of any discussion with you.. had you just been a stickler for the rules.. and not speculated on air dates in the first place when the show was bumped.. we could have avoided most of our conversation together.. but I like the mutually agreeable point we are at. The airdates should not be ADDED (deleted is fine as abc PR is not the only valid source and tends to be late on bumps as they want more people to tune in.. even if by accident and a bump throws off all future airdates) until a valid source lists them at that airdate.. therefore no speculating. -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Dude, you so got it wrong. ABC Medianet was then still reporting Ep 16 would be broadcast tomorrow. Even now ABC Medianet still says ep 16 will be broadcast tomorrow. That makes a secondary source in direct conflict with a primary source. The rescheduled dates for episodes 16-18 have not yet been announced so saying that they will be the 8th, 15th, and 22nd of March is pure speculation. So yeah i took that out. Duh. ABC is running out of dates to reschedule D187 to because of the return of Dancing With The Stars And Someone so maybe it will be on at 9pm tonight? Maybe. Refusing to list scheduled dates announced by the broadcaster that have not been changed is censoring the article. They are not my personal speculation as you blatantly claim. They are from the primary source and as such are completely legitimate to list 7 weeks in advance if that is what the broadcaster makes available. WE ARE NOT AT ANY MUTUALLY AGREEABLE POINT. People, yourself included, changed the broadcast dates in the article and didn't give any source to explain the change until i stepped in and reverted it all. Then you thought to supply a source. I have been looking roughly every half hour for the revised press releases re the air dates. TVBTN has a very well established reputation for ratings info and the guys who run the site have been subject of coverage in mainstream media. TVBTN is a self-published source that does rely on what is openly considered an unreliable source - TY publishing data is unreliable but TVBTN openly declaring that they are reprinting the data from TY is reliable. TVBTN is used because it is a self-published source from people of reputation in the field that isn't hosted on blogspot.com like TY's site. Outside of the ratings they are just any other self-published source that should not be used. As for the 18th episode not being announced, you might want to check source # 1. It is that ABC has extended the 13 episode order by 5. Last i checked 13 + 5 = 18. Details are not available from reliable sources but the episode has been announced. As such it could have been listed 3 months ago. As it is now the article looks weird to list 18 episodes at the top and 17 at the bottom.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 17:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ABC Medianet now has a press release on the 20/20 interview re the suspension of 2½ Idiots. http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=022811_01 I am not a fan of Charlie or that show. So yes, if you say Charlie is preëmpting D187 i am going to want a source. As for you finally adding a source, i did format the reference rather than remove it. Something is better than nothing. The rescheduled episodes 16-18 will likely be at least in part announced later today. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 18:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ABC released a fresh press release a little while ago which has the season finale scheduled for 15 March. It might change. For now it is the only info from the primary source so anything else is speculation. It sounds like a really good episode but my favourite character is Detective Stone and he is conspicuously absent from the official summaries for eps 17 & 18 but is still listed as a main cast member. Like i said before, if the date is changed then it is really easy to adjust the information and reference accordingly but for now that is up-to-date.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 22:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Imperioli jr
So is Imperioli jr (aka "Bobby Fitch") Vadim or Vidam? IMDb insists Vadim, Google is confused. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well i made a typo in the summary for episode 18, at least according to all of the press releases issued for the two episodes. It would seem from my reading of google results that the typo is with me in ep 18 and others as i have yet to find an official anything which says that i didn't make a typo. :P  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 05:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Detroit 1-8-7 episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101003125612/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/09/29/tuesday-finals-glee-no-ordinary-family-ncis-dancing-up-raising-hope-detroit-1-8-7-running-wilde-down/65835 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/09/29/tuesday-finals-glee-no-ordinary-family-ncis-dancing-up-raising-hope-detroit-1-8-7-running-wilde-down/65835

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)