Talk:The Terminal List

July 2022
Wikipedia includes audience scores in articles about movies. Excluding the audience score of The Terminal List makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:0:809:0:0:0:18 (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia does not include audience scores, it makes no sense to claim otherwise. It goes against several rules, guidelines, and fundamental principles of Wikipedia. They are not allowed as they are WP:USERGENERATED web polls, and as such are not reliable sources WP:RS. MOS:TVRECEPTION specifically says audience scores are not allowed for TV show. TV Ratings such as from Nielsen Media Research should be available in a few weeks, but this is an encyclopaedia not news, and it will take time to write a more comprehensive article.
 * If you can name some of the few exceptions that include Audience scores I can either remove those cases where the audience score should not have been included in the first place or explain why in a few rare cases exceptions were made after WP:SECONDARY sources have reported on the disparity between critics on audiences. Even then the disparity is rarely noteworthy, in most cases audience scores skew positive because of self-selection bias and say nothing useful. Even when the disparity is notable, it is never about the score specifically, it is about the Audience response in general. Ratings where available are a much more reliable measure of audience response. I expect sources commenting on the Audience response will become available sooner or later, but in the meantime this is still supposed to be an encyclopedia and it doesn't make sense to take a short term view and include unreliable sources like user voted web polls.
 * Audience scores are not the answer. Instead improving the Reception section to highlight the specific pros and cons of a show and let readers take a more informed view. The review roundup from Cinemablend.com helps explain that many critics have called this a "Dad show" and I think that is the key point. There is a distinct target audience who seem to be loving this show, there are others, critics included who didn't enjoy it. That's fine, people like different things. (Conversely nobody expect critics to praise the Hallmark channel type shows that Amazon is also full of, shows existing for niche audiences is not a bad thing.) The Reception section could be improved further, there were various complaints about the length of the show, there were contrasting opinions suggesting that Pratt was miscast while other said he extended his range. Just keep reminding yourself that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and try to improve the article accordingly using reliable sources. -- 109.79.68.126 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Hollywood Reporter quoted the author Jack Carr responding to the Rotten Tomatoes audience score. Not only is that a reliable secondary source (from a trade journal at that) but it is the author himself talking about the discrepancy between audiences and critics. The score itself is incidental, and doesn't need to be mentioned twice, but the author response is noteworthy, and score is a relevant part of the quote, so this probably does meet all the requirements to count as one of the rare exceptions to the rule. Nicely done anon ipv6 editor. The encyclopedia is improved, and the general rule still stands. -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Funny how you admit that Wikipedia is not interested in the real world, where viewership and audience scores actually matter, never critics. 109.87.36.102 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)