Template talk:Unreported UK viewers

" parameter required is the lowest rating reported for the week"

We really need to change the visibility of this parameter.

As is, it is far too easy to read "N/A (<4.72)" to mean the viewership is anywhere close to 4.72. Extreme example: If the programme really drew a viewership of 0.01, the current notation is entirely misleading.

While I understand the desire to answer the question "but what is the cut-off point?", I suggest the parameter should only be given in the note, allowing N/A to stand alone to hammer home the real message, which is that we do not have any data.

Mock-up of my suggested change:

Example

{{Unreported UK viewers|4.72}} = N/A ^[a]

Notes

a. ^ Not reported in the weekly top 15 programmes for four-screen viewer ratings (lowest rating reported for the week: 4.72)

CapnZapp (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Alex 21: just in case. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I never received your ping for some reason... I came to the talk page to discuss the issue once I saw the chage. The note was designed as such so that it displayed the same note for every episode, with the rating in the table cell rather than the note, allowing the identical notes to coalesce under the same name in a notes section, the same way a re-used reference is named and then re-used without re-declaring it. The changes have caused mass errors (see here), given the same name for multiple uses of the note, where the note is now different between each episode.

Concerning your initial issue with the template, I think we need to give our readers a bit more leeway and not consider them so simple that they would believe that 0.01 is close to 4.72. "<4.72" means "less than 4.72". It does not mean "close to 4.72"; that would be "~4.72" or "≈4.72". -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the errors, User:Alex 21. I agree to the general sentiment of giving our readers leeway, as long as that doesn't translate into "nothing needs to be done". I understand that "<4.72" means "less than 4.72", but that kind of misses my point:

Sometimes "<4.72" means "much less than 4.72"

So much less so, that giving out the number feels wrong - misleading the reader into believing 4.72 is somehow relevant to the actual viewership figures (which very well can be 1.72 or 0.72 or 0.02 - that is, nowhere close to the number given)...

In that light, I would like to continue discussing suggestions for how we can de-emphasize the number (and put the focus squarely on the "N/A"). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something needs to be done, but the viewers cannot be part of the note, else we end up with a mass of separate notes that are almost identical bar differing viewer values. For example, Holby City (series 21) would go from having one repeated note in the Notes section to 27 separate notes.

The value may indeed be much less, but we have no way of confirming that. The note could be modified to something similar to "Not reported in the weekly top 15 programmes for four-screen viewer ratings; the displayed value is the lowest rating reported for the week, but the episode's actual ratings may differ from this value." -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for seeing my point. If I may, however, I would like to emphasise that my objection is something specific: that a quick (call it careless if you will) reading of the information given - in the example: "N/A (<4.72)" - a reader could easily walk away with the mistaken impression that the figure given is in some way related to the show in question, that the example show drew close to 4.72 viewers. After all, the reader's eye is trained to look for viewership figures in the table cell in question (this template is often used in episode lists with a column for viewership). Therefore I would like to repeat my request to not in that "box" display a number which might not (or might) be completely different and unrelated there, and to let the "N/A" stand clear and alone. I am open to any and all suggestions. Your humble servant, CapnZapp (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. But that's just an assumption of what might happen, and yes, while they are "trained" to loo for viewership ratings in the cell, there's also the fact that "N/A" is included and the whole contents of the cell are displayed differently to a typical viewer rating. Can you show a case where a reader has actually assumed that the viewership rating was 4.72 and not less than, as displayed?

I'm not sure if there is any way to include the number while not including it in the note (per my concern) and not including it in the cell (per your concern). -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have any more arguments. Either you see my point or you don't :-)

One (somewhat drastic) solution is to not display the number at all, and just note the N/A means "below the top 15 threshold for the week in question". Otherwise I really do think the proper place for supplementary information is in the footnotes. Surely there must be a way to implement multiple notes, maybe by incorporating a parameter (week number? episode code?) in the note name? Best Regards CapnZapp (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your point, but I hope that you see mine as well. Either you see my point or you don't :-) Adding extra parameters just for the usage of a viewer rating and its location is making the template more convoluted then I intended it to be when I created it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course I see your point ("implementing this is hard") but my point is less technical and more overarching: "the current presentation is misleading and really ought to go away". Currently I am interpreting your position as "if I could change it easily I would have, otherwise I think it's fine as is." If that is your position, I don't think I will get you to do anything, and you might even oppose my changes. But here's hoping to that our mutual understanding holds: going forth with the simplest of my proposals, and let's take it from there! Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers indeed, but you still don't have a consensus to remove it. Please gain a consensus before proceeding with further bold implementations. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One last-ditch suggestion. Notice how the {{TableTBA}} template displays a popup on select values? If we could move the "lowest rating reported for the week: 4.72" bit to the tool-tip that would be an agreeable solution. CapnZapp (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And how would people know to use the title attribute? I would suggest using {{abbr}} in conjunction with it, to provide a clear tooltip that indicates a hidden note, but the documentation explicitly that it causes accessibility problems. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Know what, Alex. You're stalling. One problem after the other convinces me you don't really agree the current presentation needs to go away.

Since it's just the two of us here, and you're basically reverting my every move, seeing only problems, and not suggesting any way forward yourself...

I know when I'm wasting my time. CapnZapp (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm stalling? I gave a suggestion and an improvement on top of your own. If you'd replied civilly, I was going to make the comment that {{hover title}} could be an applicable solution to prove a "popup". I was working with you. But no. If you wanna go sulk about it, go for it, I didn't come here to deal with people who get grumpy when they realize that everybody will accept their demands. I know when I'm wasting my time. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you really are serious about proceeding in good-faith, Alex, how about you go ahead and actually implement the hover title solution. Acting as if you first need my feedback is pretending 1) I haven't already made it crystal clear anything is better than the status quo 2) I haven't run out of patience for you to actually move forward with an actual change... CapnZapp (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the intrusion, but I think the issue CapnZapp has with the current implementation is that the figure is given the same level of prominence as the N/A. If the figure were made a bit less prominent, it would help clarify that it is just additional contextual information. 202.159.169.45 (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the mysterious IP again. Are you following me now? Thank you for that summarization.

CapnZapp, contrary to your belief, pages don't get edited until a consensus has emerged, so yes, I was trying to discuss the suggestion with you before implementing it. However, you've already assumed the position of being done with me here, so good day. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't replied to either of us at the other place, so I was checking to see if you have been active. I came across this discussion which is proceeding along a predictable path. I now see that you're no keener to engage in a meaningful discussion with me here than you are over there. 202.159.169.45 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, suspicious IP, for admitting to following my contributions for your own purpose; a.k.a. hounding, a form of harassment, especially when you join discussions they are in deliberately for attention. I'm more than happy to discuss the issue of this template with you, if you had any further points to add. All you've done is summarize a discussion I'm a participant in and not presented any new information or opinions. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did present a new suggestion; that the figure should be displayed slightly differently from the N/A. I am not going to waste time listing the variety of very basic tools and techniques you could use to create a visual hierarchy between the two elements. An editor of your experience already knows them. You are well and truly capable a picking an idea and implementing it. Given CapnZapp has said "anything is better than the status quo", there is nothing stopping you from making a change. No need to reply unless you are incapable of going to bed without having the last word. 202.159.169.45 (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which was already discussed. But thanks. You are also well and truly capable, as a suspicious IP, of not hounding and harassing editors for attention. No need (for you) to reply at all. Bye! -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template potentially deprecated

As of today, BARB has overhauled what ratings it reports on its website. The four-screen dashboard has gone, and replaced with a top 50 of all channels on British TV in 7-day consolidated with pre-transmission. No more 28-day consolidated or filtering by channels. As a result, it's probably best to acknowledge that the template is now deprecated, as there is no longer a top 15 as it refers to, and no longer ratings for individual channels are reported.

I wonder whether it would be best to make a new template, with the note it creates being that "it did not rank in the top 50 programmes on British TV for the week", or something along those lines. Then again, the Thinkbox.tv website has (and hopefully will continue to report) top 50 programmes for a range of commercial channels (albeit without device and pre-transmission viewership), so I suspect another template may have to account for that (though as I say, they may decide to no longer report ratings from this next week, so it's a matter of wait and see, really).

I want to clarify by saying I don't think this template should be deleted. It should be kept due to the fact it's in use on many articles from the days when top 15s were available, but instead just acknowledged as a legacy template, so-to-speak, and the fact it'll almost certainly never be used again. --Phinbart (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phinbart: Apologies for the late response – I've been slack on updating Casualty's ratings so only just noticed the changes to BARB. I agree that a new template should be made with the same documentation, just a difference in wording to reflect the new top 50. – DarkGlow • 10:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested, I made a new version of this template to reflect the top 50 over at Template:Outside top 50 UK viewers. Usage is still the same, just a slightly different name. – Meena • 22:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just came back to this page and noticed this. That's really helpful; thanks! Phinbart (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Outside top 50 UK viewers}} has been nominated for deletion now that its functionality has been merged back into the original template; both formats can now be used with varying parameters. -- Alex_21_TALK 00:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]