This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Because not one of the episodes so far has hit the one million mark, not even when they aired in the US during the first season—and I doubt they ever will as I don't think any more will be aired on Disney Channel US—I wonder if we should make the column go by the thousands instead of the millions which I think would make more sense here. For example, the first episode of the first season received 261,000 total viewers in the UK and 797,000 total viewers in the US. Currently, we're representing those as 0.26 million and 0.80 million, respectively. By changing the column to show viewership in the thousands, we would instead show 2.61 thousand and 7.97 thousand, respectively. Thoughts? Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
If you're going to do thousands, please do "261,000" and "797,000". This discussion has come up before at places like WT:TV, and the general consensus seems to be that "261,000" is preferred over "261" "(in thousands)" or worse "2.61" "(in 100,000s)"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by IJBall (talk • contribs) 22:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Definitely agree that, no matter what, something like 261 and 797 shouldn't be used. Even when the column indicates thousands in it, some people could still get confused. (Likewise, though I don't think I've ever seen this done, we shouldn't use something like 1,547 when the column is in the millions.) I guess when it comes to an airing receiving 1,547,000 total viewers, representing that as 1.55 million total viewers is fine, but if something receives 157,000 total viewers, representing that as 1.57 thousand total viewers is not "fine," at least not here on Wikipedia. I wonder why that is. In any case, I would have no issues with writing out the thousands in full (eg, 261,000). Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Keep it in millions to match most other series and sort of what people expect to compare this to. Low millions or slightly below in this case is not uncommon. Info is still there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
I would keep it millions, but I would be okay with using three decimal places when it's under 1 million (i.e. three significant figures – that also means only one decimal point when it's 10 million or higher). But if we go for thousands, yes, definitely do "261,000" and not "261". nyuszika7h (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Are there really enough episodes of The Lodge to justify a separate article? With little to no episode summaries and only 25 episodes, what are everyone's opinions on a merge to The Lodge? – DarkGlow (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely support merge. Even if season #2 had written episode summaries (which it doesn't right now), the entire series is only 25 episodes total, which is not enough to justify a standalone LoE article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply