Talk:Nielsen Ratings

• I'd just like to state for the record that Nielson is in fact the devil. They murder perfectly good television shows with their flawed processes. (Just a little steam to let out) ---- 03:02, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
• Just a note-to-self and other editors that it looks like the actual Nielson ratings come out the Monday after an episode airs, and the Fast National ratings come out only 1-2 days after the airing (much quicker).--MiamiVolts (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Source?

So where did the Nielson ratings posted Sept. 30th come from? According to the Nielson Media website, Heroes scored a 9.9 rating with 16.972 million total viewers last week. Of course, that's total viewers (not just 18-49). Also, can we note somewhere that Heroes was 10th among the top 10 shows last week?--MiamiVolts (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

• Bigfoot Lover on Bionic Wiki is using the following sources, and I've updated the ratings for Season 2 by them here:

Fast Nationals rating and share are available one to two days after airing from Zap2It.com (rating/share is specified next to the program name)

18--49 yro rating and share (final Nielson version) are published on the pifeedback.com forum by the following week

18--49 yro viewers is published at tvbythenumbers.com the following week as well--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Merge

This article needs to be merged and then deleted the same way that the article video on demand was done. --Pinkkeith 12:34, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

• Merged with what?--MiamiVolts (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
  • Merged into the Heroes article. Right now it's transcluded, but I've always felt that the Nielson ratings don't require their own article but instead should only exist as a section of the Heroes article. (Admin 17:09, 10 October 2007 (EDT))
    • Another option, since Heroes is pretty huge, would be to leave it as-is, but trim the transcluded part using noincludes to be just the current season, with an includeonly link back to the full article. I hesitate to think how Heroes will look by the end of the season, let alone by season 5.--Hardvice (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
      • I've just never been a fan of an individual article named "Nielson ratings"; it always seemed out of place to me. I've always thought that it should either be merged into Heroes or perhaps exist as a subpage of Heroes. (Admin 17:23, 10 October 2007 (EDT))
        • Perhaps a subpage is a better option. Heroes is just so frickin' bloated.--Hardvice (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
          • I agree about only including the current season on Heroes. As for deleting the article, I'm not sure why that's needed. Unlike video on demand, the ratings listing will continue to grow as long as the series continues to air new episodes, and only the current season's ratings are relevant. We can keep the article as a kind of archive of past seasons. As for converting to a subpage, that's okay but I'm not sure we need a different subpage for each season.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
            • Agreed. I'd much rather just move this to be a subpage of Heroes than maintain separate subpages for each season (not that anyone suggested that).--Hardvice (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
              • Agreed. I like the noinclude/includeonly approach as well to limit it to the current season while providing a link to the full listing. Or you could use the collapsible tables code to show only the current season. (Admin 17:51, 10 October 2007 (EDT))
                • Noinclude/includeonly works best for limiting such huge articles that are already seperated. Hiding/collapsing the text isn't the same as not being sent the text. Collapsible tables are more for articles with spoiler info or articles that can't be broken any further like theory articles. If we do move this article to a subpage, I suggest keeping the article name as a redirect and to do the same with video on demand to allow for easier searching.--MiamiVolts (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
                  • Search wouldn't be affected much either way since searching for either would return the page since it would match on the section heading. (Admin 18:34, 10 October 2007 (EDT))
                    • I don't have any problem with the page as it is--subpage or its own page, it's all the same to me. I'm not a fan of just dumping all the info onto the Heroes page, though--I'd rather see this page fleshed out with each season, including information in a Notes section about rankings (10 out of 10, for instance).... I didn't realize that both seasons were being included on Heroes--definitely needs to be trimmed. Also, I'd personally prefer that just one or two columns of the table be included. Tricky, I know, but it could be done with templates or lots of noincludes. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2007 (EDT)