Talk:TV by the Numbers

Articles
On the website, there are articles for the Renew/Cancel Index, and Bubble Watch. Why don't we talk a little about them? 76.116.112.84 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Better a year late then never, but I just added a few paragraphs about the Renew/Cancel Index. The Bubble Watch is a completely different fish to fry, though. I asked Gorman if there was an article on the website where they introduced it (like they did for the r/c index), but there isn't, making it hard to be able to reliably source info about it. I'll get around to it at one point, along with adding info for the Scripted Cable Series Status posts and Numbers 101. Nick1372 (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Name stylization
In the copyright section of their website, it referrers itself as TVbytheNumbers, but as far as any headings/footers and social media it's known as TV by the Numbers (as the article is named right now). Out of the two, which would be the preferable name to use on Wikipedia? Whisternefet ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 03:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Another thing to note, all site titles refer to the site as TVbytheNumbers. Whisternefet ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 03:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I would definitely say to use TV by the Numbers. It's how they refer to themselves ([//tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/about] [//tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/05/14/tv-by-the-numbers-is-more-powerful-than-you-can-possibly-imagine/134047/]), and also how it's stylized at the top of the home page (upper right, in light blue). I wouldn't disagree with a redirect using the other stylization, though. Nick1372 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Founders left?
There's something strange happened at the site.....

Format has changed drastically....not for the better IMHO as it's lost its 'edgy' style.

Not one mention of the bear this TV year (so since September).....why?

Not one article by the original founders......or names I recognise from earlier in the year.

I can't find any news stories about a parting of the ways but searching for anything with TVBTN in it throws up too too many stories from the site itself.

Thoughts?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on TV by the Numbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110502045204/http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org:80/tv-by-the-numbers to http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/tv-by-the-numbers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Tvbythenumbers household ranking systems
Hi Bill Gorman Can we talk I know mark pedowitz is not happy with the cw network raitings are the Ranking systems supposed to this 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Girlmeetsworld8888 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Cw network ranking systems
Hi Bill Gorman

The reason why the cw network programing shows raitings are bad due to the fact the ranking systems are so old they are like 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 too old Girlmeetsworld8888 (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)