Talk:Poor and Stupid

Nielsen ratings
On October 9th, user NoD'ohnuts added some text that includes "a 1.8 rating/5% share". The text is preceded with a link to the Nielsen Media Research article, and the source is a page at tvbythenumbers.com. In my opinion, there are two problems with this: --82.171.70.54 (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Let's start with the source. It is a page at tvbythenumbers.com. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about tvbythenumbers or tvbythenumbers.com. The page at tvbythenumbers.com has a line "- 1.8/5 A18-49" that is precede by "All of that and much more of Wednesday’s cable finals via Travis Yanan". In that text, the person's name links to their source, a Twitter page. Now I have to look for a tweet: the older it is, the more I need to click "more". It turns out there are two links to overviews for 10/06/10 and I need the "cable final" link - not the broadcast final link. So, his source turns out to be a forum post, by the guy himself on a website pifeedback.com. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about pifeedback or pifeedback.com. All in all, I'm sure there's a better source out there than (a) a forum post on (b) an unknown website by (c) an unknown person.
 * 2) The English Wikipedia is not just visited by Americans, but even many of them may not know that 1.8/5 is a Nielsen rating that gives the percentage of US households that watched this episode: the former of TV owners, the latter of TV owners watching TV. Adding a link to Nielsen ratings would help, but we could use a &#123;&#123;Nielsen ratings|1.8|5&#125;&#125; or something similar, because Nielsen ratings are mentioned quite a bit on Wikipedia. This would standardize things and assures a link to Nielsen ratings is automatically being added. However, most importantly: it could - and should, in my opinion - explain as brief as possible what these numbers actually mean. It should not say "1.8 rating", but something like "seen by 1.8% of all US TV owners". This would make things so much clearer for so many people...

No actual cultural references in the cultural references section.
Shouldn't we rename it "Trivia" or just delete it?--No hay nick libre (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Most aren't even trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.35.247 (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)