Talk:Lost in the West

Removing "Ratings" section
I have removed the "Ratings" section from this article because it is already presented in the episode table. There is no substantive reason why the season premiere and finale ratings information needs to be presented twice. The other information, that there are 3 episodes, is also already presented in the infobox. Nowhere in WP:MOSTV is a standalone ratings section required. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You appear to not know anything of how TV series articles work. Of course they're going to present information already listed as that's how they calculate the average. Most TV series articles have a separate list of episodes article, but as there's no season two for this series, of course the episode table and ratings are going to show some "same" information. In addition, you are not following WP:BRD. Until a consensus is reached, the article must stay on the version it was on before the issue. This is not me talking, this is policy, so you should tread carefully. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. Please let's keep the conversation to content, not personal attacks.  My position is that a separate standalone section and table are not necessary because the same information is presented in the main episode table.  If the average rating information is required, a separate section is still not necessary.  It can be presented in one sentence.  Please be civil.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 05:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I refer to Manual of Style/Tables. Prose is preferred in articles to tables.  One ratings average is not sufficient in my view for an entire new section.  Also not particularly aesthetically pleasing.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I made no personal attacks. In any case, that's not really how it works; otherwise, why have the ratings template to begin with? It is standard practice here to have standalone sections for season ratings of any series. If you feel like a ratings section is not needed for series, then it would probably be better to raise your issue at the appropriate venue, but I can pretty much tell you that you'd be in the minority. Also, MOS:TABLES is talking about tables in general, not specifically for TV series articles. There are several articles specifically for TV series. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence in your first comment is a derogatory comment towards me as an editor. I am saying that standard practice is not needed in this specific case because Lost in the West consists of three episodes total.  If we're dealing with a series with multiple seasons and dozens of episodes, I would not have removed the table.  You are arguing to include it because of principle, which I disagree with.  MOS:TABLE applies to every article as a style guideline, so it absolutely applies here.  A bulky table in a standalone section is not an appropriate presentation for one ratings average in this case.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are still guidelines specifically for TV series articles. MOS:TABLES is not one of them as it is, again, for tables in general. Even so, the point of a ratings table is to show the average of a given number of episodes, anywhere from two episodes to anything above two episodes. So we could have a ratings table to show the average of just two episodes if we really wanted to. There is nothing visually unappealing about it because it appears the exact same way when used on a TV series article with 20 or more episodes. In addition, nowhere does it state that there has to be a certain amount of episodes before the ratings table can be used. And even if there were a separate List of Lost of the West episodes article which contained the table and this article just contained the series overview table, the information would still be coming from the episode table. The only difference is that it would be coming from a different, but related, article. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 06:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There really isn't a need for the ratings table at this time. First, the average is not sourced and presumably self calculated. While simple calculations are allowed, this is a case where the average should be sourced. So say we remove that. That leave info that is just repeating content already stated elsewhere in the article. So at this time, with only one season of 3 episodes, this table is superfluous. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Unsourced? Yeah... the answer to that is no. The sources are right there in the episode table. And they're not self-calculated, either, since the expression takes are of all that. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a source for the average viewship - that is unsourced. I said nothing about the other viewer numbers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no need to source the average viewers, and there's never been, as we're the ones, as Wikipedians, who started doing this. Websites, like Showbuzz Daily, that post viewership data from Nielsen don't post the average viewership numbers after a season, only individual episode viewing numbers, so it would be impossible to source, anyway. The average number of viewers comes from the individual numbers of viewers which are sourced. The average number of viewers is automatically calculated with the expression function by adding all of the numbers and then dividing by how many numbers there are. As long as the numbers in the calculation are correct, there is no problem, and if there are incorrect numbers, such as from typographical errors, or IPs vandalize the section by inserting fake numbers, the calculation can be easily fixed by editors who check the sources. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again. As I stated. The numbers in the table should be sourced. I don't know where you're getting that there was never a need to source averages. There most definitely is. If an average number can't be sourced, it should not be included. Wikipedians should not be making these calculations, because you are assuming the average is correct. I can point to an exact example where this was the case. On List of Arrow episodes, some user did exactly as you did, added all the season viewership numbers and averaged them. This was 100% incorrect once the sourced article came out giving the averages for the year. So I hope you see my point. The way you did it may very well be the average of the season, but without the source to back up, it should not be included now. Which brings us full circle to the table being pointless at this time. If more episodes/seasons exist for this show, then it would be beneficial to possible have the table.
 * This is how it has always worked, and if you can't see that because, as usual, you always have to be right, then that's your problem. The average numbers themselves have never been sourced because, again, there is no way to source them since sites that publish Nielsen ratings only publish individual ratings, not average season ratings. However, at the same time, they are sourced in a way because the numbers come from sourced individual numbers. And it hasn't been a problem because TV series regulars know that the average numbers come from sourced information for each individual episode, which is sufficient, and if you refuse to look at what's right in front of you because you have to stand on your hill and always be right, then, again, that's your problem. I did NOT manually calculate the numbers by adding and averaging them, the expression function did all of that for me—that's why it exists! Using this article, the sources are here (1.223), here  (1.197), and here  (1.002) which are clearly in the episode table. Using numbers from valid sources is most definitely NOT WP:OR. Also, it doesn't matter that there are only three episodes, because nowhere does it state that there have to be a certain amount of episodes before we can use the ratings template. If there is something that states otherwise, then by all means, point me to it. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The ratings average is a trivial calculation made by a Wikipedia calculation function of well-sourced individual data items. There is no need for references to support trivial calculations such as these. If someone were doing the calculations off-line and posting it that would be different but all the data is listed and well-sourced here. As to whether or not the table needs to be in the article, that is an editor consensus decision. I see no guideline or policy that requires removal. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But still . What purpose is this table serving in the article? WP:COMMONSENSE seems to apply. The purpose of these tables at other articles, is when there are multiple seasons, or the episode tables are not in the same article, to see the overview of the seasons. But on this article, when it is so small in content, and is literally repeating info directly below the episode table, why is it needed? It does not serve any purpose for the reader. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards to the inclusion of the average viewership, according to WP:TVOVERVIEW "If average viewership numbers are included, they should be adequately sourced, and not the result of your own calculations as this would constitute original research." So if that policy holds true here, the average shouldn't be included here anyway, per WP:OR. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They are the result of well referenced data items and the calculation is done by wikimedia functions, not any persons "own calculations". That is adequate sourcing and a trivial automatic calculation done by the platform software for display of the average. The requirement for sources is for the case that someone just posts an average from their own calculations, not the case here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You just said it was an "automatic calculation", which breaches the policy which states they need to be "adequately sourced" and "not the result of your own calculations." Whether you do the calculations by hand, use a calculator or "platform software" it is still you own calculation and not able to be sourced independently. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * covers this: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." It is not a violation of policy to plug data into a source table and let the wikimedia software display a trivial conversion. No editor is involved in the calculation and the data is well sourced. I doubt that any wikipedia editor familiar with simple arithmetic would look at the data and the article source for the display of the average and conclude that the result was not correct given the well referenced input data. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with what you're saying, I'm just pointing out it conflicts with what WP:TVOVERVIEW states. So perhaps TVOVERVIEW needs re-writing or clarity around the issue is required. Perhaps editors of television articles have not reached the consensus OR talks about with regards to television ratings. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the conflict as being major if the intent of the guideline is being met. WP:TVOVERVIEW says: "If average viewership numbers are included, they should be adequately sourced, and not the result of your own calculations as this would constitute original research. Sourcing is crucial for accuracy, and to help other editors quickly respond to numerical vandalism.". The key concern here is the data accurate and catching vandalism shown by being verifiable with sources. The issue with someones own calculation is that people make arithmetical mistakes so some editor's calculation itself cannot be easily verified correct. A sourced average calculated by a reliable source can be source checked so that takes care of the source and calculation accuracy. The concerns about accuracy and correctness, which is the root issue, is covered by having the input data to the average function easily verifiable and the accuracy of the calculation also easily verifiable. The base concern is do we have the correct number displayed. The guideline is articulating a issue and giving a solution of using an external reliable source. Using a wikimedia's clearly verifiable calculation on well-sourced data also addresses the issue and the underlying intent of the guideline as written. The reliable source, so to speak, is the well-referenced input data, trust that wikimedia can correctly make simple calculations,  and the verifiability of method used by wikimedia to make that calculation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless now of how the average was calculated, it still doesn't require the inclusion of the table in question. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And it doesn't require the exclusion of it, either. As mentioned, there is no policy forbidding inclusion of the ratings template when there aren't very many episodes contributing to it, and just because you don't like it is not a valid reason for exclusion. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't, not like it. It does not serve any purpose that these tables usually do, as I've been pointing out. The tables should not just be used for the hell of it, or because you can. They should have a reason behind their inclusion. And this one doesn't serve any purpose, again, when it is simply repeating info for the sake of repeating it because a table is available to do so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've stated the reason multiple times that it provides an average of the episodes that were shown just like it does on any other TV series article. The fact that you refuse to see that because you always have to be right is not my problem, and I suggest you consider dropping the stick. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 17:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest keeping it as long as editors keep it correctly updated. The display of the running average is additional info not shown in the episode list. It doesn't degrade the article in any way to have the table, in my opinion, so I can't think of a strong reason for removal. If the table does not stay current for what ever reason, likely due to lack of updating, then I would support removal. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the only reason is to show the average ratings, which again, you haven't stated why the average needs to be shown, beyond other series use it so it should be here too. What purpose is it serving to help the reader? In the context of this article in which the entire program consists of three episodes (versus other broadcast/"mainstream" which can have 13-22 episodes) why is seeing the average of those three episodes important? If it needs to be in the article at all, that can easily be done with prose, below the episode table, in the "Episodes" section as follows: "The miniseries averaged # viewers." That removes the unnecessary repetition and creation of a whole new section that isn't needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Then we'd be back to square one with you spouting off we'd need a source for that sentence. That's what the ratings template is intended for, and, again, it does not matter how many episodes there are, as long as there are two or more. There is no policy stating we need a certain amount of episodes before using the template. I don't know how clearer I can be. If this were a movie or TV film article, that would be a different story because there there is only one entity, but in this case, again, we have two or more episodes. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 18:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you more insistent on keeping the ratings average information or the table that presents it? --  Wikipedical (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Both, really. As I've mentioned multiple times, that's the whole point of the ratings template/table; otherwise, it wouldn't have been created for use in the first place. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for an entire table which only contains one unique piece of information. The average can easily be mentioned in prose form elsewhere as User:Favre1fan93 says. Just because a table exists doesn't mean it has to be used. There's a template specifically for Australian television ratings - it exists but that doesn't mean it should be used here, because clearly there is no case, reason or context for it in this article. I don't think the case has been made for the existing ratings template here. The average just needs to be sourced, either through a reliable source or editor consensus that a calculated number is accurate. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Just my thoughts on this based on the article (I haven't read through this whole discussion here). The information in the ratings section is already all in the episode table, so I see no reason why the separate section should exist. And even if some other noteworthy information is added to the section, I would recommend that the table still be removed. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Bit of a long discussion to read through, but I too see no reason to keep it. The only new information in the table is the average, and that can be included in the article as prose. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 05:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been two days since the last editor posted in this discussion. Four other editors have agreed with my position that a separate ratings section and table is unnecessary, and the ratings average can be presented as prose, serving as a compromise position which I believe to be the most common consensus. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus is when everyone agrees on a solution, which wasn't the case here. It doesn't matter how many days have passed. But whatever. I will no longer be watching this article. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)