Talk:List of In Plain Sight episodes

Season 2 Finale

 * If the Season 2 Finale is the season's 15th episode, how is the season episode count 16?--Subman758 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The narrative needs to be fixed. USA ordered 16 episodes; the producers wanted to film the cliffhanger and its resolution at the same time, so they used the sixteenth episode as the opener of Season Three, and will run 15 for Season Two. Drmargi (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please source the information and update the pages for consistency. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, duh. That's why the change hasn't been made yet - I need a source better than a Tweet and an admin's comment on the USA message board.  The press release naming the season finale date doesn't explain where Ep. 16 went, and won't do the job on its own.  Drmargi (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This may have been settled already, but if not... The USA Network schedule for August 9 says that the 15th episode will be the season finale, and the next week's time slot is filled by something else. I'm not sure if the schedule is enough to confirm a 15 episode season though. http://www.usanetwork.com/schedules/sched.php?sdate=8/9/2009 (August 9) and http://www.usanetwork.com/schedules/sched.php?sdate=8/16/2009 (August 16). Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Season Thee Opener
At present, there is no entirely reliable source for the name of the first episode of Season Three. While Futon Critic is a far more reliable source than spoilertv or fan-submitted sites such as TV.com or the IMDB, it's not perfect (see their current listings for this week and next week's Burn Notice, which are in the wrong order) and does estimate airdates and titles at times. The last reliable information we had from USA, a press release at the end of season two, was that they planned to use the as-yet unaired episode 216, which was to have been the second-season finale, as the season three opener, not #301 as listed here and on Futon Critic. I have reverted the addition of #301 as the opener, and believe the title of the first episode is questionable enough that we should wait until USA announces its March schedule, including the title of the first episode of Season Three. --Drmargi (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The USA schedule for March 31 lists "Father Goes West" (301) as the opener. I'm not sure if they are going to forget about the 216 episode, but that's what they have listed right now, so I placed a reference and put the table back. Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Restoration of original lists article
The episode lists article has been split into three, small, repetitive articles, with a number of technical errors made at the time of the split. User:AussieLegend has corrected as many as possible, but some problems remain. But that's the least of our problems. Each season article contains nothing but the original list of episodes, and season cast lists, all of which could easily have been incorporated into the original list article, while this article has now become a repository for episode cast lists that actually belong in the season articles. Moreover, the original list article on this page was well below the length standard for splitting the article into multiple season articles; it's generally length or the need to add substantial content by season that provides a suitable reason to split. Finally, there was no discussion or consensus reached before the article was split into the three sad fragments we have now. I am proposing the individual season articles merged back into this article, and the separate season articles be deleted. Before I do so, however, I want to offer the point up for discussion. Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea. The other thing that helps factor in is that the seasons for USA shows like this one are generally only 16 episodes, as opposed to the usual 22 on network.  While articles on network shows should probably start being looked at by the end of season three, a USA show article can go to at least season four before it's length is a problem.  And I agree with previous statements made that there's not a huge abundance of extra content justifying a split.  As far as my humble self is concerned, happy editing.   KnownAlias   contact  18:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SIZERULE recommends that consideration be given to splitting articles once an article reaches 40-60kB of readable prose. Even using a very loose interpretation of the definition of readable prose, the amount of readable prose in a restored version of List of In Plain Sight episodes is under 9.9kB, which is well below WP:SIZERULE's upper limit of the "Length alone does not justify division" category. Splitting is typically reserved for shows with several seasons, making the "List of" article overly long, and that just isn't the case here. There was no need for splitting when it was done and, based on article growth I don't see a need for several seasons yet, unless substantial season specific content can be added to the season articles. One very peculiar thing I found, compared to other episode lists, was the almost complete exclusion of guest stars in the season articles but complete inclusion in a separate list here, which implies that the guest stars are more important than other episode information, which is giving the guest stars undue weight. This also means that for each season, a reader must look in two different places and that's undesirable because it makes things harder for readers. It's undesirable from an editing perspective because the episode tables in the season articles and the tables here can get out of sync. It's made more confusing because Episode list is used in the episode tables, as it should be, but a custom table is used here. The article history shows no guest star information prior to the split. The tables were added after the split but no rationale for not including this article in the season articles was given. It makes far more sense to include everything in one page if the only substantial content is the episode tables. The cast and characters information can be included here if necessary, although that should be limited to seasonal cast changes, since the cast is already handled in the main article. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this makes a more than adequate argument for merging the three season articles back into this one, particularly given how insubstantial they are individually. Once concern I've always had about these broken-up episode lists is that they do add an extra, pointless, step for readers.  Moreover, we lose the one place where we look at the series episodes in totality. Drmargi (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since nobody has opposed, I've gone ahead and restored this article, merging in all content from the individual season articles, which have been redirected to the appropriate sections in this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh I OPPOSE to this, the state of this article and it's subarticles should be the season episode, title, original airdate, production nubmers, and guest stars. The rest (ex. episode summary, other guest stars, season information, episode viewership etc.) on it's own page (ex. In Plain Sight (season 1) and so on). I motion that this page should return to it's original form. The more seasons IPS has the more this page is gonna be clutered, that's why it was split into subarticles the first place. TOO much seasonal information per, on one page. For example this page should be like the List of Burn Notice episodes or List of White Collar episodes. You have 24 hours. PaulaSVU (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you don't have consensus to restore the split articles, and as noted above, the guidelines support keeping it as it is now. Moreover, a better case can be made for restoring White Collar to this format than it making a case for this article to be split, given it only has 14 episodes and one season.  24 hours or what? Drmargi (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Though I would prefer that everything be restored, I must agree with the above users for now. The main list is not yet cluttered enough to be split up.  Unless there is a significant addition (such as a major prose paragraph about production or reception), I say keep things the way they are now. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither List of Burn Notice episodes or List of White Collar episodes are good examples of how an episode list should be split. Neither has been split as per the instructions at Template:Episode list and both have many of the same errors that were here. Neither are featured lists like List of Numb3rs episodes or List of 24 episodes, which is where you should be looking for guidance on how a list should be split. However, both of these, and most other featured lists, have many more episodes and seasons than this program. With only 40 episodes, IPS has fewer episodes than two average seasons of most other programs, so the list is not at all long. There is simply no justification for splitting one short article into four much shorter ones, as I've previously discussed. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Instead of putting the freakin' episode descriptions here trying transcluding the page! AKA List of Royal Pains episodes, List of NCIS episodes, List of NCIS: LA episodes, List of Law & Order: CI episodes.SVU4671 (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In an ideal world there would only be a single article for each program's episodes, with episode summaries included in the article. However, as in the case of List of NCIS episodes and List of Law & Order: CI episodes, sometimes the lists become too large and it's necessary to split them. When doing so, consensus is that there is little to be gained by transcluding everything back to the main list so the episode summaries are not transcluded. However, in short articles such as this and List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes, the episode summaries are included in the list. We split articles when they become too large to manage, not to get episode summaries off the page. List of Royal Pains episodes should never have been split for the same reasons as this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again here's an article too soon split, in the case of List of Royal Pains episodes. It appears it's being done rather pro forma, rather than editors looking at the guidelines for splitting.  Drmargi (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not copy summaries from series or other websites (USANetwork.com, TV.com, etc.)
Do not copy summaries from series or other websites (USANetwork.com, TV.com, etc.) You gotta think on your own, and even then it's a copyright violation even if summaries came from said websites since the SERIES PREMIERED! 66.217.112.3 (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The state of this article.
This page has gone from something informative, professional looking and of encyclopedic value, to a disgusting mess of poorly collected fan "info", TWICE!

1.) Previous revision - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_In_Plain_Sight_episodes&oldid=364790260 (So many problems)

2.) Current revision - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_In_Plain_Sight_episodes&oldid=366469534 (Just directors, writers, episode title, viewership, summaries, ALL seasons on ONE page!) In my opinion this will turn into a future mess.

3.) My version - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_In_Plain_Sight_episodes&oldid=366469249 (Just directors, writers, episode title, viewership, PRODUCTION CODES! All seasons split with their OWN articles!) In my opinion it should be kept plain and simple.

I say look at WP:LEDE.


 * "serve both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."
 * "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." because of the extra information that had crept in about guest roles.
 * "define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable"

I recommend you (User:AussieLegend) read the WP:MOS, WP:LEDE, MOS:TV, WP:LIST, and every other policy, guideline and essay before editing any episode list article ever again if this is what you call a 'cleanup'.

This list of episodes for In Plain Sight should look like for example, the List of Law & Order: CI episodes, List of NCIS episodes, List of M*A*S*H episodes, and/or List of Burn Notice episodes.

So I think we should take a 7-day vote. Treat this like an Afd with out the 'fd'. From the time I post this until the next 7 days until this time (according to my time signature).


 * You vote for the previous revision (#1)
 * You vote keep for the current version (#2)
 * Discard for my version (#3).

By seven days, 'the jury will be in', basically. What do you say?

I vote Discard. My reason above. SVU4671 (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I say consensus is not a vote, and you need to read WP:CONSENSUS. You should also read WP:CIVIL, and remember that you disagree with the edit but don't criticize the editor.  The article is in compliance with the guidelines as is, and consensus was reached.  Moreover, you need to learn what a production code it; the numbers you and many other users add are episode numbers (i.e. in broadcast order) erroneously labeled production codes.  Production codes indicate the order of episode production, and are added to the episode by the studio.  One of the rare list articles that has real production codes is List of Miami Medical episodes.  Drmargi (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your post is a little disjointed so I'm going to address specific points, to make sure I cover everything:
 * "Current revision", "In my opinion this will turn into a future mess" - When it gets large enough, yes it will, but the article isn't at that point yet, and won't be for quite some time.
 * "My version ", "In my opinion it should be kept plain and simple." - Actually, that version is a disaster waiting to happen, or rather a disaster that has already happened, in a slightly different form. Rather than transcluding the episode tables as per Template:Episode list you have two tables for each season, one here and one at the season article, the only initial difference being that the table here excludes the episode summaries. The potential for duplication errors is enormous. People will generally edit one article and not the other, which is exactly what happened with the previous version that you cited, which you admit had "so many problems". Different people won't edit the same article and the tables will end up out of sync, as happened here. Transclusion, as per Template:Episode list, requires only a single table, located in the season article. The episode summaries are automatically stripped from the table when the content is displayed here. This eliminates the duplication errors that always occur when you have two supposedly almost identical tables in two different articles. Both List of NCIS episodes and List of Burn Notice episodes, two of the articles you've used as examples of how this article should look, transclude, as does List of Numb3rs episodes, which is a featured list. However, transclusion is only used when articles become so large that they need to be split, which hasn't happened here yet, as has previously been discussed.
 * "I say look at WP:LEDE" - WP:LEDE refers specifically to the lead section of the article, not the episode tables that you're complaining about. The lede in both your and the current version of the article are identical so this is a non sequitor.
 * "I recommend you (User:AussieLegend) read the WP:MOS, WP:LEDE, MOS:TV, WP:LIST, and every other policy, guideline and essay before editing any episode list article ever again if this is what you call a 'cleanup'." - I suggest you read Pot calling the kettle black, No personal attacks, Edit warring and Template:episode list, but not necessarily in that order. Incidentally, I was the person who cleaned up List of Burn Notice episodes and its season articles. I also cleaned up List of NCIS episodes, split it and created its season articles. You've used both of those as examples of how this article should look. That's somewhat ironic, don't you think. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The List of Law & Order: CI episodes is also not a notable example of a proper article (as, for that matter are any of the Law & Order pages) for reason number two cited in AussieLegend's example: selective editing of one article, and not the other. I took the liberty of providing an example by de-linking writer Geoffrey Neigher in season 1, as he was red linked, which I did at 4:17, but lo and behold, I had to turn around and do it again to the main page, which was done, as you'll note, at 4:20.  Because the articles, rather than being properly transcluded, simply exsist separately.  And that may be all well and good for an experienced editor who knows better (and by knowing better, I guess I mean knowing that there's two articles to edit, instead of a properly transcluded one), but newbies and IP'ers are going to edit only what they see, creating nothing but chaos.  And while it may be all well and good for an experienced editor, a properly transcluded article, allowing only one edit, would certainly be better.  The List of M*A*S*H episodes appears to suffer the same malady.  All the more reason to be patient, and do this right, when the time comes.  Which, I guess, means I'm "voting" #2.  In your own words, SVU4671, it'll become a future mess.  Unless, of course, one of the thorough and attentive editors like AussieLegend or Drmargi (as I'm sure they will, since we're issuing proclomations of faith towards future events) get to it before that happens.   KnownAlias   contact  09:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 2.) Current revision per Drmargi (who committed that edit), AussieLegend, and Knownalias. Duplicate tables maintained separately will be disastrous.  The largest version we are considering is only 35 KB, why do we even need per-season articles?    — Jeff G. ツ 14:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have consensus for the articles as they stand now. I fail to see why anyone is voting, since a vote is not a consensus process. But regardless, size alone was never the issue with these articles.  Aside from the lists, the split articles had zero content, as is also true of two other series of similar duration, noted in the previous discussion. Drmargi (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The previous consensus is difficult to see at present; the results of this "vote" should make the current consensus perfectly clear, thus paving the way for further WP:DR processes, if necessary.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True enough (although I would argue how clear the previous consensus is); my concern is that this vote not contravene the consensus process, but rather serve as advisory and as a mechanism to reinforce the established consensus. Drmargi (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Season Articles
About time to split off into individual season articles? I think it is, and would be more than happy to make all the necessary changes if no one objects. Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not yet. The article is still of reasonable size.  You might want to see the discussion on the talk pages for Castle's episode list.  AussieLegend spells out the criteria nicely.  Drmargi (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. I'll wait a few seasons, and if it becomes too long, do it then. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you slide up the page to the earliest discussion, you'll find Aussie has nicely articulated WP:SIZERULE Drmargi (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think now is the time to make season pages. 68.44.179.54 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Series #/Season # and №/#
There's been a lot of debate on Wikipedia lately about how to label the columns for episode counts. Too many IPs and new editors seem to think "Season #" is the number of the season, as opposed to the number in the season, and either change all of the numbers to the number of the season to match what they think the header means, or change the header to "Episode #", not realizing that both columns are episode numbers in their own way. The most recent suggestion popping up is the "№/#" solution, popular for those who favor the smaller column widths, but questioned by many as being further unclear, as both symbols merely mean "number", and require some kind of table explanation to which "number" means what. I came up with this solution in response to this conversation also taking place on Covert Affairs and White Collar. I'm hoping this attempt might bring some clarity to the situation. This page was selected because it's a popular cable show soon to experience a high traffic volume, doesn't have independent season pages to mess with just yet, and because it has a prominent hidden note addressing this very issue. Feedback is appreciated...I'm not trying to act unilaterally. This is simply a "test case". KnownAlias   contact   14:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you like the idea of trying this here. Although it's a bit less popular, it's plenty busy and has a bit less IP traffic, plus the timing is perfect.  I'll be joining the discussion as it progresses.  Drmargi (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not just lately, there have been numerous discussions over the years. A big one was at Template talk:Episode list 8-9 months ago. There's not a lot of support for "№/#" because they're just different ways of saying the exact same thing. As far as I can see, there's only one editor really pushing that style. Another editor proposed "Overall episode #/Season episode #", which I think is reasonable. "# in Series/# in Season" is certainly an alternative. It formats better than "Overall episode #/Season episode #" but "series" and "season" shouldn't be capitalised. People are always going to make that mistake whereas they won't with "Overall episode #/Season episode #" because "Overall" and "Season" should be capitalised. Overall/Season has been used at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes for 9 months and there have been no issues. That list, and its season articles, have been busy. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Poorly worded, I guess; I really did mean "lately" in terms of the "№/#" issue, and only linked the most recent conversations I knew of. But yeah, I've been watching this go on for a while, too. And you're right, so I de-capped "Series" and "Season" in the columns.   KnownAlias    contact   15:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on List of In Plain Sight 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/20080703072321/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/06/04/weekly-nielsen-ratings-cable-top-20-nba-in-plain-sight-and-andromeda-strain-lead-the-pack/4015 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/06/04/weekly-nielsen-ratings-cable-top-20-nba-in-plain-sight-and-andromeda-strain-lead-the-pack/4015
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630031049/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/06/10/nascar-criminal-intent-wwe-anderson-cooper-and-army-wives-lead-cable-viewing/4089 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/06/10/nascar-criminal-intent-wwe-anderson-cooper-and-army-wives-lead-cable-viewing/4089
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630023304/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/06/17/nascar-wwe-icarly-and-army-wives-lead-weekly-cable-viewing/4161 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/06/17/nascar-wwe-icarly-and-army-wives-lead-weekly-cable-viewing/4161
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903174843/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/06/24/nielsen-ratings-weekly-cable-tv-top-20-camp-rock-zooms-by-nascar/4235 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/06/24/nielsen-ratings-weekly-cable-tv-top-20-camp-rock-zooms-by-nascar/4235
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326072446/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/01/nielsen-ratings-weekly-cable-tv-top-20-wwe-raw-back-on-top/4303 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/01/nielsen-ratings-weekly-cable-tv-top-20-wwe-raw-back-on-top/4303
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730171854/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/09/nielsen-ratings-weekly-cable-tv-top-20-nascar-races-back-to-top-spot/4373 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/09/nielsen-ratings-weekly-cable-tv-top-20-nascar-races-back-to-top-spot/4373
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090906021654/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/22/nielsen-ratings-cable-tv-top-20-home-run-for-espn/4507 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/22/nielsen-ratings-cable-tv-top-20-home-run-for-espn/4507
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418021403/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/29/nielsen-ratings-cable-tv-top-20-the-closer-nascar-and-miley-cyrus/4561 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/29/nielsen-ratings-cable-tv-top-20-the-closer-nascar-and-miley-cyrus/4561
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080826042210/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/19/nielsen-ratings-cable-tv-top-20-the-closer-nascar-wwe-raw-and-monk-take-top-honors/4732 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/19/nielsen-ratings-cable-tv-top-20-the-closer-nascar-wwe-raw-and-monk-take-top-honors/4732
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5u1hrqPXm?url=http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/28/wwe-raw-nfl-draft-and-yankees-red-sox-lead-weekly-cable-viewing/17595 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/04/28/wwe-raw-nfl-draft-and-yankees-red-sox-lead-weekly-cable-viewing/17595
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090521131059/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/19/nba-playoffs-nascar-and-wwe-raw/19069 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/19/nba-playoffs-nascar-and-wwe-raw/19069
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725183727/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/06/09/nba-playoffs-jon-kate-plus-8-and-2009-mtv-movie-awards-lead-cable/20342 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/06/09/nba-playoffs-jon-kate-plus-8-and-2009-mtv-movie-awards-lead-cable/20342
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626043740/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/06/23/jon-kate-minus-1-3-million-falls-way-out-of-cable-top-20/21274 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/06/23/jon-kate-minus-1-3-million-falls-way-out-of-cable-top-20/21274
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090731151703/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/07/28/burn-notice-the-closer-nascar-top-weeks-cable-shows/23699 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/07/28/burn-notice-the-closer-nascar-top-weeks-cable-shows/23699
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090807220112/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/08/04/the-closer-burn-notice-royal-pains-top-weeks-cable-shows/24119 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/08/04/the-closer-burn-notice-royal-pains-top-weeks-cable-shows/24119
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100407191725/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/01/wednesday-cable-real-world-hits-lows-south-park-stays-high-in-plain-sight-returns/47093 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/01/wednesday-cable-real-world-hits-lows-south-park-stays-high-in-plain-sight-returns/47093
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100503081435/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/29/wednesday-cable-ratings-south-park-increases-18-49-ratings-plus-in-plain-sight-mythbusters-ugly-americans-more/50131 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/04/29/wednesday-cable-ratings-south-park-increases-18-49-ratings-plus-in-plain-sight-mythbusters-ugly-americans-more/50131
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616030149/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/10/wednesday-cable-ratings-are-we-there-yet-tops-adults-18-49-in-plain-sight-tops-viewership/53791 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/10/wednesday-cable-ratings-are-we-there-yet-tops-adults-18-49-in-plain-sight-tops-viewership/53791
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100703044900/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/07/01/wednesday-cable-ratings-hot-in-cleveland-edges-down-in-plain-sight-finale-up-tosh-0-top-chef-more/55969 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/07/01/wednesday-cable-ratings-hot-in-cleveland-edges-down-in-plain-sight-finale-up-tosh-0-top-chef-more/55969
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60InnwDHB?url=http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/07/19/sunday-cable-ratings-true-blood-slips-falling-skies-steady-breaking-bad-leverage-in-plain-sight-the-glades-more/98316/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/07/19/sunday-cable-ratings-true-blood-slips-falling-skies-steady-breaking-bad-leverage-in-plain-sight-the-glades-more/98316/

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) 06:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)