Template talk:Television season ratings

18–49 rating
Could a column for 18–49 rating be added, as seen at The 100 (TV series)#Ratings? It would either need to be behind a show_18_49 parameter, or if we want to be consistent, hide_18_49 and go through existing transclusions with AWB to add that parameter. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are not many transclusions actually, so it's easy to correct them at this point. nyuszika7h (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (Also, it's ironic how the documentation is using The 100 as an example when that article is not currently using the template. I can't be bothered to check the history, it's possible someone reverted it to table form to add the extra column.) nyuszika7h (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ – nyuszika7h (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Timeslot
Can someone explain to me why the timeslot exists on this template? It violates WP:NOTDIR as Wikipedia is not a TV guide and has been implemented endlessly on TV show articles. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  05:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed multiple times. Put simply, the addition of the timeslot column allows readers and editors to view the difference in ratings when a series' timeslot changes. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 05:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't explain that it violates a policy, though. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  05:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of it doesn't automatically make it a directory. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 05:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't bet on it, Callmemirela. There are reasons for timeslots in TV shows articles because there are differences in ratings and timeslots when certain shows move from one date and time to another. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, it shows a date and time for a show from seasons, as if it were a TV guide regardless of what table/template or content it represents. It still violates the policy. Frankly, if it can't be applied here, then why have NOTDIR in the first place? Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  05:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then, what you're saying is that if we included the time of a premiere date in the lead of a season article, it violates policy. But in this case, it doesn't? Someone should seriously straighten this out. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  06:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are shows that can move from different timeslots midway through a season and those mvoes can affect the ratings in each seasons. That is part of the reason why we need that information on those type of articles. If you think this violates anything you say, you can forget it and you are not solving anything based on what you said on that issue. TV shows articles should include timeslots because of those reasons, reasons that you are ignoring. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil during discussions... "you can forget it and you are not solving anything" is not getting this discussion anywhere. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Woah, man. All I am doing is opening a discussion and trying to understand how policy is regarded for one thing but ignored for something else. If you can't show some respect for what I am trying to explain, then please ignore me and go on as you'd like. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  06:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me explain something. You should start thinking about what I said about timeslots that is needed for shows that ran each season and could change dates & times either mid season or the next season that could affect the ratings of them before you start prematurely removing them without thinking about those issues. Remember that next time before you start removing stuff. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And again, I only abided by what policy said. You are treating me like a newbie, which I am seriously disliking right now. If all you're going to do is treat me like this and unwilling to hear what I have to say, please remove yourself from this discussion. Your opinion is different from mine, yes. But you don't have to act as if I know nothing and I don't think about the rest. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  06:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I hate policies that can hinder some things that are deemed necessary for many articles and that's one of them. A lot of policies affected a lot of things in articles in the wrong direction. We don't have to be like the person who believes what is right or wrong, but we don't have be such by-the-book bereaucrat that can hinder things either. There are some policy changes that affect what was great in articles and becomes degraded because of those changes. I hope you understand that. Like I said before, you have to understand removing the timeslots in TV shows articles could affect readers from seeing change of dates and times which could affect ratings in shows. Think about what I said. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And again, it is not my fault that such rules exist. All I want is to be heard, but all you do is shut me down, refuse to listen, treat me like a newbie and accuse me of not solving anything. You're not being very collaborative. If you don't agree with I am saying, that's your problem not mine. I am allowed to start a discussion. Just because you think one way doesn't mean it's the right way. I am done with you, frankly. Now, if we could get back to the discussion... Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  13:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you possibly answer my previous messages? "Again, it shows a date and time for a show from seasons, as if it were a TV guide regardless of what table/template or content it represents. It still violates the policy. Frankly, if it can't be applied here, then why have NOTDIR in the first place?" and "Then, what you're saying is that if we included the time of a premiere date in the lead of a season article, it violates policy. But in this case, it doesn't? Someone should seriously straighten this out. Thanks, Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  05:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hiding this column
All the discussion above aside, regarding whether it violates WP:NOTDIR or not, why is there no option to hide the timeslot column? Sure, readers want to compare what happens to the ratings when the show is moved to another night, and there has been some talk about how some shows are moved during mid-season. The big four broadcast networks in the U.S. (ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX) are likely to stay firm with what night their programming airs, but when you get to cable broadcasters, and I especially notice this with Disney Channel in particular, it's up in the air. A show on DC can air on a given day and night one week, and then several weeks later, it's moved to some other time. And it's even more messed up. Recently, two shows on that channel, Stuck in the Middle and Best Friends Whenever, had week-long runs of new episodes where they had the show on each weeknight, Monday thru Friday, instead of the usual night(s) these shows air. With how DC is scheduling their programming (won't single just them out, but not sure about other cable networks), I don't know what use there is for the timeslot column, and a number of articles for currently-running Disney Channel shows are employing use of this ratings table. When the show moves to another night (and these changes are happening during a given season, not just when switching from one season to the next), editors are inclined to put in all the timeslots these shows have aired in—and yeah, that's clearly against WP:NOTDIR. But again, there are networks that do not stay firm to keeping a show consistently airing on a given night and time, and the column is deemed useless. What difference would it make about a show's ratings if the show doesn't air consistently on the same night of the week and time? And especially when you consider children's networks like Disney and Nickelodeon? So why not have option to hide the column? MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded – it needs to be "hideable". The importance of timeslots makes a lot of sense, vis a vis ratings, for somewhat long-running broadcast network shows. But for some of the other shows some of us track, particularly some of the shows on some of the cable networks (e.g. Nick and Disney, especially) which jump timeslots a lot, tracking timeslots is, 1) a hassle, and 2) of no real informational value. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure whether this table is intended solely for US television programs, but considering it doesn't explicitly state that, this template shows American bias. In most other television markets, TV seasons aren't as clearly defined and timeslots can jump around week to week. If this template is designed only for use in American productions, then perhaps that should be stated on the documentation, and if it is designed for use by any nation's programming then multiple columns require the ability to hide. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

✅ nyuszika7h (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think some bigger networks like ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX should have the timeslots since it is revelant to the ratings of each of their shows, but as for other networks, it should be discussed whatever the timeslots should be hidden or not. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

TV season column
This edit sparked the thought that should we be hiding the TV season column for cable shows (AMC, FX, HBO, Showtime)? Because, the U.S. "TV season", as in September to May, is for broadcast network, not cable. To use Fear the Walking Dead for example, it's incorrect to say the first season aired during the 2014–15 United States network television schedule when it aired from August to October 2015. Should this become to norm for cable shows, employing the  parameter in the template? Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Avg. viewers (millions)
How can I remove this parameter from the template?. What I mean is that I do not want it to be displayed in certain articles.-- Philip J Fry : Talk  00:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Entire season
I think it's pretty clear from the documentation that totals include only the whole season. -- / Alex /21  03:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , your response is required. -- / Alex /21  04:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's your precious response. The line says The official average viewers released by the network for the entire season... Nothing there says it has to only be used for an entire season, as you claim. There's certainly nothing that says using the average for a season thus far is prohibited and only an average for a completed season is allowed. Point me to even a guideline page that mentions anything about this. Amaury • 06:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes it does. "The number of episodes included in the season in question. The count is for the total episodes, rather than how many have aired." Oh, and "entire season", if you missed that part. Can you comment where it says "Please use partial season averages"? If template documentation were able to be brushed off as easily as you have, then why have you not added the most recent episode count and airdate to Series overview? Template documentations are guidelines; a guideline, by definition, is "a general rule, principle, or piece of advice." That's what this is. And thank you for finally responding; I knew you'd get around to it! -- / Alex /21  06:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I only responded because it was my idea to respond, even though this isn't the appropriate venue to be discussing this. I will not be ordered to do things here. Except that it doesn't say total episodes. There isn't anything that says partial season average, but there's also nothing that prohibits from doing it that way, either. The season end date and thus number of episodes for the season have not been added because we don't know when the season will be over as we have nothing confirming X date is the season finale, but that's irrelevant here. Again, point me to even a guideline that suggests as a general best practice not do to this. Amaury • 16:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You were told to respond instead of edit war. Good job. Anyways. It doesn't matter when the season will be over. The template says nothing about it needing to be a finale and doesn't prohibit adding partial episode counts. I could just add what's aired so far. What's the difference between that scenario and this template? Can you name other widespread examples (outside of your own personal usages and interpretation) of this template using partials? Also, I'd like to counter your reply: it doesn't "prohibit" the use of partial counts, as guidelines almost never "prohibit" something, as you well know, but where does it actually support the usage of partial counts? -- / Alex /21  08:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You made the bold edit, got reverted, and chose to revert in your usual insistence that you were right. You're the one who was edit warring here. The difference here is that we explicitly need sources to confirm a season or series as over. In any case, if it neither supports nor prohibits, then it can go either way and either way is fine, so then it's up to the status quo and local consensus if a discussion starts. Some articles use partial; some wait until the season is finished. Not everything requires an explicit support, and not everything is included and specified in the MOS to the nth degree to avoid WP:CREEP. This is part of what AussieLegend said in a somewhat similar discussion a few years back revolving around the ordering of episodes on Earth 2. Amaury • 17:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, status quos are not policy. Also, you have not answered any of my questions at all, regarding series overviews, how these scenarios are different, other examples, or where it supports partial counts. I am awaiting your answers. Some articles? Present them. And present this "local consensus". If no consensus can be shown, and there is nothing that actually supports one's view, then we always fall back on documentation and guidelines; I have seen nothing to support this, and thus the burden is on you to gain a clear consensus to circumnavigate that which is written here. -- / Alex /21  23:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You made the bold edit, got reverted, and chose to revert in your usual insistence that you were right. You're the one who was edit warring here. - Looking at the edit history, after his bold edit Alex reverted once while Amaury reverted twice. If this dispute was between an experienced editor and a newbie than that might have been understandable but you are both experienced editors and it takes 2 to edit-war.
 * This is part of what AussieLegend said in a somewhat similar discussion a few years back revolving around the ordering of episodes on Earth 2. - Wow! Even I don't remember that discussion. ;)
 * status quos are not policy. - True but both of you are experienced enough to know to follow WP:BRD and reverting per WP:STATUSQUO is something we do regularly when edits are disputed.
 * Note that I'm not taking sides here, just pointing out things that are really irrelevant to what you should be discussing. Don't sweat the small stuff guys. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Would one of you mind mentioning which series/article you guys are talking about? Can't seem to figure it out and it would help put some context to this discussion. Like how are you coming up with a source for this partial season average? Are you using TV Series Finale (which often doesn't have official ratings till a few days after an episode has aired) or calculating it yourself? Is it a cable or broadcast show since the "official" season numbers are different for broadcast shows than simply averaging all the episodes of the season, so using a partial season would definitely be wrong for broadcast shows. Personally, I think we should be waiting till the entire season has aired before putting an average. It is quite misleading to put a number that isn't for the entire season and can lead to it never being updated if someone isn't watching and updating it every single week. - Brojam (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Just Roll with It. There is no source included for the "partial" average. -- / Alex /21  23:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then it should for sure be removed, as should the first season average since that one also doesn't have a source. - Brojam (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It seems there is more editorial support and template guideline support for not adding partial averages, than there is for using them, for which there is neither editorial nor template guideline support. -- / Alex /21  06:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Brojam, the averages come from the sourced viewership from the episodes. That is the source. We plug that into the template, which calculates the average. This is done automatically, not manually, and is supported by WP:CALC. Amaury • 16:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I find the partial season ratings data useful when I want to see how a show is performing so far; and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Since each individual episode rating is sourced and the average is calculated using Math, it doesn't count as WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR. So, while the guideline doesn't specifically spell out anything about partial ratings, I think they're an improvement to the encyclopedia.— Starforce13  16:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Seeing how a series is doing so far is equally important, and I'm sure it's partly how networks may determine when to or if they will renew a series. As for the concern of the average being unsourced, I could understand if the calculations were being done manually, because we're human and prone to making mistakes—even if we're doing the math with a calculator, we could input something in wrong without realizing it—but the calculations are being done automatically by the template, so it does not constitute as original research, like you said, and WP:CALC supports this, like I mentioned to Brojam above. And the numbers come from the individual viewership from each episode, which is sourced. Averages are simple, in any case. You add and divide by the total number of items. If a boss releases an all-out attack on a party of three, causing damage of 131, 98, and 109, respectively, the average damage to the entire party would be 113. Amaury • 16:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Rating average to date is useful information and each data item going into the trivial calculation of averages is reliably sourced. There is a maintenance problem if the data is not maintained which in my mind is the only real issue but as long as it is updated regularly, it should remain. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The maintenance thing is my biggest issue. It's great that in this particular case, there's an editor that is updating it every week, but there's no guarantee that it will be the case for the rest of the series life and certainly wouldn't be the case for most others series. As well, how is a reader supposed to know if the number is for the entire season or partial? - Brojam (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For articles where it's regularly updated, I don't see an issue. All of the articles of series I watch I maintain really well when it comes to the viewership. For articles that lack maintenance, perhaps it's best not use it there. It really just comes down to the local consensus on each article. And, really, the same argument could technically be made for the number of episodes field used in Template:Infobox television. I've seen articles where those were so out of date, it wasn't even funny. For example, 52 episodes have aired, but the episode count was only at 45. As for your second question, the "Episodes" column tells people how many episodes go into the average. Amaury • 23:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * People can usually tell if there's a mistake by comparing it to the episode list tables, but yes I've seen similar mistakes as well. Doesn't mean we should add new areas that could fall into the same pitfall. The "Episodes" column is the count for the total episodes, rather than how many have aired. - Brojam (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If maintenance is regularly kept up with and you have an editor—any editor—who's willing to commit to keeping things updated, whether it's this, the number of seasons and episodes that have aired for a television series, or what have you, I don't see any issue myself. If there's a page that's getting so out of date, the best course of action would probably be just to remove the averages altogether, at least until the season is complete and then it can just be updated all at once. Likewise, for the number of episodes that have aired. If 52 episodes have aired, but nobody has updated the television infobox since the 24th episode aired, the best course of action would be to probably remove it altogether and then just input the number of episodes that have aired once the series concludes (and there's a reliable source stating the series as over). The articles we have for YouTubers here also fall into the same category when it comes to reporting their number of subscribers as that constantly changes. Personally, though, I just find that trivial altogether. The articles should be focused on the person, not so much their YouTube stats. And many other things, I'm sure, but my main focus on Wikipedia is television series articles. Amaury • 20:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well in the case of YouTubers, there's an As of/Updated date attached either next to it or at the bottom of their infobox and you can say the same thing about athletes and including stats in their infoboxes. But anyway, I think it's okay if editors decide they want to update it weekly (it's great that we have editors willing to do that), but it should be clear that the info is partial. And not using that "Episodes" column since per both this template's doc and Series overview, it is not a "how episodes has aired/is being used to calculate the average" (because I can assure you that that it is definitely not the correct number of eps being used for any of the broadcast shows since the official numbers from Nielsen/networks include repeat airings and exclude episodes classified by the networks as a special airing if they air on holidays and such). Maybe, a solution could be to have a note attached saying this average is including episodes so-and-so to so-and-so when it's not the full season number? (And this should never apply to broadcast shows since like I've said those shows calculate their official averages differently.) - Brojam (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At least on the articles I care about and watch and maintain regularly, there's already a hidden note next to the "episodes1" parameter—or whatever season it is—stating the following: should reflect the number of episodes that contribute to the average given in the last column. I personally feel that sufficiently explains it, but we can always elaborate to make it super clear and include something to the effect of what you said above of the average, for example, being for episodes 1–6. There's certainly no harm in clarity. Add: In response to your statement saying this should only be done for cable series, yes, I agree. As it so happens, articles for cable television series are the only ones I watch and maintain regularly. If broadcast series have official averages released by the network, then we should use those. Not that doing it the way we do for cable series is necessarily wrong, but in that case, the official averages released by the networks are just the better ones to use. Amaury • 22:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The ratings table is usually in a "Ratings" section meaning that the data there is related to the ratings. So, it's obvious that "Episodes" refers to the number of episodes used in calculating the ratings... not the aired episodes. It doesn't matter whether the number is for the full season or partial because the math remains the same: SUM(ratings)/number(episodes).
 * 2) A lot of networks have stopped sharing their season's L+SD averages. That means, if we don't calculate them ourselves, there might never be a reliable source to give us the values. So, if we wait on the networks press releases and other reliable sources, the Ratings section will end up being irrelevant in the near future.
 * 3) If we have editors willing to maintain the data, maintenance shouldn't be the problem. So, I don't know why this is such a big deal. —  Starforce13  00:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note that the above editors were canvassed here. I have properly seeked wider community view at WT:TV and WT:MOSTV.
 * Contrary to popular opinion, WP:CALC does not support these additions: provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. No sources reflect these partial averages; if so, please show which source shows the partial averages.
 * Nor do any of these partial averages show the averages throughout the season in a past manner, only the present manner; i.e. I cannot see how the season was doing two weeks ago, I can only see how it is doing now.
 * I'm sure it's partly how networks may determine when to or if they will renew a series. Seems like WP:OR to me.
 * I've also seen no answer to my previous question. If template documentation were able to be brushed off as easily as you have, then why have you not added the most recent episode count and airdate to Series overview? What's the difference between that scenario and this template? Can you name other widespread examples (outside of your own personal usages and interpretation) of this template using partials? I can guarantee that no series overview uses partial counts, last-aired episode or partial averages. What makes this template so different? -- / Alex /21  02:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no canvassing, so I suggest you knock it off with the false allegations, as you like to say. But thank you for pretty much admitting to contribution stalking me. Amaury • 03:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You reached out to editors that side with you via talk page and pings, instead of reaching out to a wider community. That's canvassing; specifically, campaining and vote-stacking. Contributions are public access, and when the two editors above appeared at the discussion, I was and am well within my rights to confirm it, and I was right. -- / Alex /21  03:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We're far from a tag team. I don't usually take sides based on who is involved. and I are usually on opposite sides on most discussions we've been involved in. And since I don't regularly update the ratings, there is no way he could have predicted I will agree with him. And  and I still have an unresolved heated debate. So, us being on the same side on this issue has nothing to do with taking each other's side. Amaury tagged us for our opinions because we closely monitor those articles. —  Starforce13  03:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is noted, thank you, as is your opinion on the partial counts. Nevertheless, it remains canvassing, as it was pointed to specific editors and was not a neutral message. -- / Alex /21  03:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For someone who's so high and mighty on guidelines, Alex, it's a surprise you completely skip WP:APPNOTE, or intentionally skip it because of your intent to stir the pot: On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article, editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). The editors I invited are editors who watch the article, and nowhere did I say, "Hey, take my side!" It was a neutral invitation to a discussion if they were interested. But then again, I wouldn't expect you to understand such complex words since your reading level is no higher than a kindergartner's. So you should screw off on actual false allegations, as you're only making things worse for yourself. And either way, it doesn't change the fact you admitted as much to contribution stalking me. Your reasons are irrelevant.


 * Do you want to know a secret? Starforce is correct that we don't always see eye to eye. In fact, one of our very first interactions with each other on a talk page discussion got a little heated. However, we were able to work through it and now respect each other and are able to have cool and calm discussions and come to an agreement or compromise, even when we don't agree with each other's points of view, because they don't go around trying to prove some sort of point, making false allegations without substantial proof, and they definitely don't go around being a dick.


 * I will continue to respond to others in this thread, but I am done replying you, because all you care about is having your way. And don't bother trying to ping me, as I blocked ping notifications from you a long time ago. And if you try to post anything on my talk page, I will revert and report you for repeated harassment. Amaury • 06:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , personal attacks from anyone you disagree with. Again. How very typical of you. Thanks for the canvassing diff and the attacking post; diffs for future reports. If you refuse to discuss the topic with anyone here, then you refuse to discuss it at all. Your refusal is noted as a consensus against your edits, as is your constant reverting and obvious mass reverts, your page ownership and canvassing, your battleground behavior, tagteaming and personal attacks. Happy editing. -- / Alex /21  10:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hi, I would like to use this template in some pages, however, the current column possibilities are less than what I can code manually. For example, many reality shows air two seasons per television season. I'd like to see a TV Season Length column. Also, it's great that there's an 18–49 rating column, however, there is no 18–49 rank column as there is for viewership. I would like to see an 18–49 rank column in this template.

Just to sum up, I think these would make great additions to this template and would justify its use where it currently isn't warranted:


 * TV Season Length


 * Viewership Rank Length
 * Viewership Length


 * 18–49 rating Length
 * 18–49 rating Rank
 * 18–49 rating Rank Length

Thanks! I believe this would allow the template to be used in a lot more articles. Heartfox (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think these would be great additions and would certainly allow more television series to use this template, as well as providing more information (the 18–49 rating rank) for the series currently using the template. - Brojam (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm currently in the proceed of coding them in. -- / Alex /21  22:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I haven't updated the documentation yet; I'll do that after work, but here's an example of how to implement it. You need to use "hide" to not display parameters of seasons already included in the spanning rows (e.g. if Season 4's TV season has a span of 3 rows, then set Season 4's season, and Season 5/6's seasons to "hide").


 * -- / Alex /21  23:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Is there any reason why you put the rank columns after the averages? (Is it cause you think the averages are more important to the readers?) Since in most series overview tables, we put the rank first, might be good to change it back to be consistent. - Brojam (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It was more of a bold edit, but I've always thought it makes more sense for a value than a rank. You can have a value without a rank, but you can't have a rank without a value. If it's contentious, I can change it back, no issues. -- / Alex /21  06:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I'm good with keeping it like this, unless others have an issue with it. - Brojam (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal but I would personally have to agree with 's original thoughts. When (most) ratings are written (in a news article) the rank is listed to the left followed by the value on the right. Also, on Template:Series overview, the rank is listed before the value, so, perhaps for consistency purposes I think the rank columns should be switched. But again, it's not that big a deal. Heartfox (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ya, that was my thinking as well in regards to how season ratings and rankings are written/published. - Brojam (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- / Alex /21  03:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Any chance the 18-49 rank column could not be added by default? Even when it's not included in the table, you have to force it not to appear with hide_18_49_rank. I'm not familiar with coding, but can't it be done where columns only appear when there is something filled in, eliminating the need for the "hide" attribute? Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Viewer ratings, viewer rank and 18-49 rating are included by default, why would 18-49 be hidden by default? Hiding it with hide_18_49_rank is exactly the same as hiding other columns with hide_rank or hide_18_49_rating, so there is conformity between those last four statistic columns by showing them all by default and offering the option to hide them individually. -- / Alex /21  07:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Timeslot spelling
Hi and others, do you think "timeslot" should be used, or perhaps it should be switched to "time slot" given it seems to be the more widely used form of the word. There is currently a comment on an open FAC that "time slot" is perhaps the correct form. I don't want to remove a whole template to spell a word differently; do you think this should be applied to the other templates as well? Or, would you say there is a strong consensus or something to use "timeslot"? Just trying to find a solution. Heartfox (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did a quick Google search, and "time slot" seems to have a slight edge over "timeslot", though the latter isn't incorrect. I honestly don't care, but we can just make it two words in the code so the template will update where ever it's being used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)