Talk:List of Rookie Blue episodes

References

The numbers in the article do not correspond to the numbers in the reference section. I don't know how to fix it. Looking at it further, the problem is with having reference 19a,b. 20 is skipped in the article, but not the reference section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.66.93 (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding of the Canadian Ratings to Table

I do not have a problem with adding Canadian Ratings to the table but here are my concerns:

1. It is not common to see BOTH US and Canadian Ratings in the table and makes the table seem somewhat packed.
2. Replacing the US Ratings with Canadian presents the following problem:

- Could be deemed as POV edit

- Could be deemed as an edit made in bad faith

3. Replacing the US Ratings with Canadians BUT adding a separate and comprehensive table for US Ratings presents the following problem:

- A comprehensive table should include total viewers, 18-49 ratings and viewer share. Something that the Canadian ratings would not have and therefore could be considered POV or edit made in bad faith.

4. Adding a separate and comprehensive table for Canadian Ratings presents the following problem:

- Same as 3 except vice versa.

5. Removal of US Ratings from table and adding a separate comprehensive table for both US and Canadian Ratings (like in the Flashpoint entry) presents the following problem:

- Lack of information about Canadian viewership from reliable sources making it difficult to justifying the use of a comprehensive table.Meowies (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you bloody joking? How can you say Canadian ratings on a Canadian show is POV? If anything it is Americanism POV to include American ratings on a Canadian show, especially to the exclusion of domestic Canadian ratings! To insist upon doing so is to endorse bad faith editing.

If you can't accept Canadian ratings then the only acceptable course of action is to have none. To do anything else, including leaving things as-is, is pushing an American POV on a non-American show. To presume comprehensive information is not available is not fair; there are not so many Canadian prime time shows so of course it is less common to use Canadian ratings but that does not mean they don't exist. If you really think American ratings are appropriate for any show shown in USA then I dare you to do so to the Beeb's Spooks (aka MI-5) or Doctor Who. It won't go over well. Probably worse than my objection on Rookie Blue.

I have been sitting on an edit to swap this around for a couple of days now. Canadian finals come out a few days after the episode airs. Given CBS is now calling the currently airing eps of Flashpoint "season 3" that article is really a confusing read and not the greatest of examples at presenting a show shown in Canada and USA. And yes, I have a POV here, that being that Wikipedia is not American and the Americanisation of content to the exclusion of the subject's domestic information is the worst point of view to write an article from. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 11:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You need to relax. Scroll up and read it over again. First I said it COULD BE DEEMED. Secondly the scenario involved removing the US ratings. Which to anyone would seem like a bad faith edit. I maintain at no such point did I said it was or was not and I stand by that fact. My reference to a lack of a comprehensive information on Canadian viewership may not seem fair but is a valid point. Is there comprehensive information about total viwership, 18-49 ratings share and finally household ratings for Canadian viewership? If there isn't and I have looked, it would be odd to have a "comprehensive" tables for both US and Canadian ratings without comprehensive ratings for the Canadian viewership, which in turn would start some debate about whether ONE: there should even be such a comprehensive table to begin with; when such information is missing and TWO: spark yet another debate on POV where-by the American information is much more solid than the Canadian ones. Imagine having a table specifically for US ratings that had total viwership, 18-49 ratings share and household ratings, where as all Canadian representation had was total viewers on the episode list table. I cannot imagine you would let that go either.Meowies (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Are abcmedianet and cbspressexpress and nielsenmedia.com not accepted as references all over the place? Having spent some time trying to find a non-broadcaster, non-ratings company, non-non-reliable source the best that came up in my searching and the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard was the LA Times. However the LA Times it would appear stops including ratings in the late spring. Citing the broadcasters and Nielsen directly are not my personal preferred options but almost all other options are less reliable. Canadian overnight numbers, not-from-blogs, are available for the first three episodes while finals for ep 3 will likely be available in a couple of days. Given that the 18-49, share, etc are all cited to overnight for ABC i see no issue with using the same stats for Global. Building wikitables is a weakness of mine so i will let you know when i have all of the columns laid out properly. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I couldn't find the share info for Canada. I also couldn't get weekly ranking for the American ratings. O My! Canada ratings being finals, 18-49, daily and weekly ranking; American being overnights, 18-49 rating/share, daily ranking. It is not the same but the ratings are not released with the same info in the two countries. My wiki has some issue with displaying things properly when not logged in; refs and infboxes in particular look like a mess. This is what i am suggesting to tone down the overt Americanisation on this Canadian show. Also, please note that my wiki is not licensed for copy and paste back into Wikipedia by anyone other than the one who made the edits on my wiki (ie myself). delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Weekly rankings can be found here:
Ep 1: http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/06/29/tv-ratings-top-25-americas-got-talent-wipeout-hells-kitchen-crowd-the-top-of-weeks-ratings/55620
Ep 2: http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/07/07/tv-ratings-top-25-americas-got-talent-bachelorette-wipeout-fill-the-top-of-the-rankings/56155

The next set of rankings should be available on tues possibly on wed.

Having said all this. Rankings are practically useless. You can easily discern where a show came given enough research (albeit a bit tedious) but rankings don't usually mean anything unless your talking about where a show finished at the end of its season against others. Again, its odd to have a comprehensive list that shows something as "meaningless" as rankings without showing something like household ratings. Consider splitting the tables so its not so packed and secondly, is it necessary to have Canadian ratings in the episode list? Its obviously redundant at this point.Meowies (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Rankings are a pretty big deal here, especially since the show comes #1 each night and so far has always been in the weekly top 5. When put up against the lower ratings figures of the USA one can clearly see the proportional relation between ratings and ranking between the countries and how the show is more popular in Canada - Roughly 1 out of every 20ish people watch the show here in Canada. That is comparable to what NCIS is getting in the USA for new episodes these days. You can't outright write that into the article for the synthesis rule but for those who think to do the math the ratings table would tell them that. For those who don't think of the population difference between Canada and USA it just leaves the Canadian ratings looking utterly pathetic and cause for cancellation if it were getting those numbers in USA. In short, rankings provide context.

Typically a multinational ratings table is one table not one per country. I have a for-today's-standards low resolution and i have my wiki set to a font larger than WP defaults to and a font size larger than WP defaults to too and i don't find it squished. I actually find it odd that you do. I half like the font that way and it also works as a guide to writing for 800x600 resolution monitors.

Well if you can show it is an American show then American ratings would make sense in the episode list. Typically domestic rating is in the episode list and if the show is popular enough in international markets then those would be compiled along with domestic in a table below the episode list for comparison and such.

I just read the weekly ranking and OMFG i thought it would be about 12th or 13th but to rank 22 in 18-49 is a big surprise. Ouchies. Americans really do love the reality shows. Now that i have seen it for USA the weekly rank in Canada at 4th doesn't look so bad. That is where NCIS finished in USA :P I sear i wrote all of the above paragraphs before i looked at the weekly ranking links you posted.

Likewise the Canadian weekly finals should be available on the 16th. I think later today i will go through and swap out some references and probably numbers too since it is preferable to use finals rather than overnights were available. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 12:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So a bit of a conflict: BBM has the premiere at 1.9M while the press release announcing season 2 from CanWest has 2.1M very explicitly stated as the final.[1] The conflict is that the 200K difference bumps the show from weekly 2nd to 1st ranking, ahead of the World Cup and contrary to what BBM, the ratings company, has available to cite. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for my late reply as I have been a little busy of late. In any case, perhaps I was not being clear to begin with. Neither US or Canadian ratings should appear on the episode list if the comprehensive table is to house both already. Like I said its just redundant. As for rankings providing context. That's arguable. Your talking about two totally different countries, and your trying to compare them on same level which makes it even more strange, given you never really wanted the US ratings to start with. I'm quite certain anyone who sees the numbers (total viewers) will know its because of a population difference. Not to sound harsh, but I really don't think your giving people enough credit. In regards to the readability of the table, maybe I am just a minimalist or maybe its the font or both, I'm not sure, but I will reserve final judgement until I see it when its close to completion. In regards to the the conflicting ratings. There is also another conflict, in which one of references from Canwest said the premier was at 1.8mil [2]. As a result of multiple conflicts there would also be naturally a conflict with the 18-49 share. On a related manner I will suspend the Canadian ratings on the main article page. I will leave a note explaining a conflict. Meowies (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ranks provide context. Without the ranking how would one know that 1.9M came in 1st and not 41st. Comparing total viewers relative to the respective countries population was just an observation of mine. The 1.8M is an overnight. Once BBM released the weekly results the 1.8M was set aside. CanWest's press release giving revised final total viewers is a bit odd. My concern is between 1.9M and 2.1M. Removing it from the main article makes sense. I have never been a fan of averaging the rating like that on WP since it at least skirts the original research and synthesis policies. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 12:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What if we replaced Canadian ratings with Americans ratings? Wouldn't that create the same problem? NorthernThunder (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC) moved from in the middle of Meowies' initial post. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 12:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to NorthernThunder's query. The answer is yes but no. At this point, this is not the scenario. American ratings are already on the episode list and they never "replaced" the Canadian ratings at any stage. If your query was a hypothetical as I am assuming it is, then yes it would create a problem, which is why there has been a discussion between myself and Deliriousandlost. 07:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meowies (talk • contribs)

First off i moved NothernThunder's comment out from in the middle of Meowies' initial post on this page to where it would fit chronologically as it is somewhat bad form to insert a response in the middle of someone else's post and it took me a while to find it.

My thoughts on the Americanisation of this article and the main article are pretty obvious from the above and the main article's talk page - completely against it. Yet it was apparently Americans who started this article. Here is a little table for all to consider.

criteria	Canada	USA
Creator
Setting
Commissioned pilot
Ordered series
Cast
Production Co.
Broadcast
Ratings used in articles

Now where is the biased POV about the ratings? It lies in the use of American ratings in the first place, as the principle mention, and in being the only mention. Per all of the standards of citing ratings the American ones have no business in this article as anything more than secondary mention like Canadian or British ratings get on an American-made show, if they appear at all. One production company has offices in NYC, Toronto, and a few other places. The other production company is entirely Canadian. This is NOT an American show. The article intro gets that.

Rookie Blue (previously known as Copper)^[3] is a Canadian police drama television series starring Missy Peregrym and Gregory Smith.

Even the into to the list of episodes admits it is a Canadian show.

Rookie Blue is a Canadian police drama television series created by Morwyn Brebner, Tassie Cameron and Ellen Vanstone.^[4]

How anyone can call it biased editing to have the Canadian ratings used is beyond my comprehension. Why the image and channel and official website in the infobox are American i get but just simply do not accept. I call those very things WP:NPOV violations. All American mention needs to take a back seat for this show. Smallville is not flooded with Canadian info because it airs in and is made in Canada, because it is made by and principally for the American audience. The article is not the greatest but look at Falcon Beach. It is a Canadian show made in and principally for the Canadian audience. It also aired in USA and over a dozen other countries. An alternate version was made concurrently specifically for the American audience. That is why the US broadcast merits mention above and beyond the typical passing mention of other foreign broadcasts. Such can not be said of Rookie Blue. Then there is Flashpoint, which tries to acknowledge the American broadcast of the series. Read the article some time. It is a horrible read. CBS has a different episode/season split than CTV has. Even if you know what is being mentioned it is presented in such a manner that renders even the most informed reader confused. Why anyone would outright want that type of article baffles me.

Lastly there is Template:Infobox television documentation itself. It reads, "channel or network   The original channel/channels or network/networks on which the show appeared or appears. Do not add foreign broadcasters here. Use links if articles are available." I repeat with emphasis, Do not add foreign broadcasters here. Can it be any more simple than that?

The only thing those wanting American ratings on a Canadian show have going for them is the POV in the WP:MOSTV itself which states to use Nielsen (ie American ratings) and somehow makes no provision for shows that are foreign to USA. I'll be going to take issue with that now. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 12:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Link to my raising concern about MOSTV directing to use Nielsen explicitly. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (television)#American POV in the MOS. Chime in if you wish. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll clear the air here before I continue upon the current situation.

I feel like I am being painted as the bad guy here, and that my editing and/or the editing of others is considered to be an American POV. I quote Deliriousandlost:

Yet it was apparently Americans who started this article.

For the record. Yes I started this article. No I am not American. Such accusations that I am American and therefore my stance at maintaining the American ratings is of a POV nature are not only unfounded but unfair.

Secondly in regards to the link and image. This is no place to discuss such an issue here to begin with, and bringing it up in this situation is simply adding fuel to the fire. Furthermore it is simply a slap in the face given that just hours prior to your post I had re-opened dialogue asking for help choosing 1 of 4 new images for the infobox located here: Talk:Rookie Blue#New_Image. Since you have brought this up I have no choice but to defend myself and the editors involved about violations of NPOV. The items in question were added in this edit: [5] at 23:08, 17 May 2010. At the time of the edit the only available material was from the ABC. I refer you to the following two links. The first will show that the ABC Rookie Blue website was indexed on the 28 Apr 2010. The second link will show that the GlobalTV Rookie Blue website was indexed on the 12 Jun 2010. Hell I will even used google.ca:

ABC:

• http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&tbs=qdr%3Ay&q=%22http%3A%2F%2Fabc.go.com%2Fshows%2Frookie-blue%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Global:

• http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&tbs=qdr%3Ay&q=%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globaltv.com%2Frookieblue%2Findex.html%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

As you can see Logical_Fuzz did no wrong as the material from Global was not available to him/her till nearly a month later. As far as I know Logical_Fuzz is in the North American region. Specifically what nationality I am unsure of, but his/her edits were made in good faith and not in an American POV. Any further allegations that state me or other editors that have contributed to this article or the main article have violated NPOV, without proper proof backing those allegations; will not be met with too kindly.

Third. I was the one who added that is was a Canadian police drama (evidence here: [6]) as I accept it is a mainly a Canadian production. If I wanted to I could easily say it was a Canadian-American production. This should further dispel any such allegations that I am in violation of NPOV.

Now on with what I am to say. As I said I accept that this is mainly a Canadian Production. The page says Canadian but it also says the following:

The series is a joint venture between Canwest Broadcasting and ABC, and produced by E1 Entertainment.

Given that Canwest also put out a joint announcement with the ABC ([7]) renewing Rookie Blue for a second season, I think it is fair to say a joint venture doesn't mean that anything American immediately takes a back seat. In regards to the "Do not add foreign broadcasters here" comment. I am confused. Are you suggesting we remove the ABC as the original channel? Or have you just read it wrong and trying to argue that the picture and website don't below because it says "Do not add foreign broadcasters here"?

Read the first sentence of this whole exchange.

"I do not have a problem with adding Canadian Ratings to the table but here are my concerns"

I respectfully decline to participate in the MOS discussion for now. Meowies (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The image is used on this article too.

"I do not have a problem... here are my concerns..." Those can be completely contradictory statements. If you don't actually object and this entire page is because you wrote the "concerns" section then it is a massive joke we have played on ourselves and each other for we are on the same side of the argument. If any of us actually do object then just say so and drop the hypothetical scenarios.

Relying on google indexing to find the info is not always of any practical use for Canadian info about tv. In fact it is quite useless most of the time no matter how long the info has been out there. More often than not one has to actually go to the respective site and directly read through it to find things.

ABC is as much a foreign broadcaster as the UK's ITV or Australia's Channel 7, should they show the series. It has no business in the infobox. The documentation for the infobox even says so.

ABC bought the show afterward.

"I think it is fair to say a joint venture doesn't mean that anything American immediately takes a back seat." Funny though how it does mean Canadian can not only not be in the front seat but can get out of the car entirely. If you want to really pursue the joint venture, equal status.... put back that it is set in Boston, get a custom infobox allowing 2 official websites, allow 2 columns of ratings in the episode list, and everything else also be both. The numbers from the pilot in the main article present the American success but make no mention of it being the most successful Canadian drama to date. The American POV is not just in the episode list or the infobox, but is throughout the articles. Thing is it is not both. ABC bought rights to the series. A joint press release with unique content to each of them is just presenting a unified stance. Watch an episode. ABC is not one of the production companies. Hence ABC is a foreign broadcaster. Hence ABC deserves the back seat. Or shall i add in the future international broadcasts on the Universal channels? Maybe i will just put in the re-writes i did for the articles as this is going nowhere very slowly. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 05:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is actually not one mention of it being a joint venture that includes ABC. The press release cited from the principal production company actually flies right in the face of ABC having anything to do with production.

"Leading independent studio, E1 Entertainment announced today the Canwest original drama series COPPER has been picked up by ABC for broadcast in the United States. The 13 episode series will air on Global Television in Canada."^[8]

That is the same thing as when Global picks up an ABC original series like Brothers & Sisters. It simply indicates that ABC bought the right to show the series in the USA. Nothing more. But much less than how it is presented in the articles at this time.

There are not even a handful of Canadian shows that have any interest internationally and i can not abide by Wikipedia's Americanisation of yet another of article on such shows. I updated my copy with recent changes and found that even the punctuation has gone American - the period inside the quotation marks even if it is not so in the source.

ABC bought rights to air the show. They are nothing more than a foreign broadcaster just like NBC's international Universal channels will be. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Copper was creating saying the show would air on ABC.[9] From that time forward the onus has been on anyone else to show cause for it to read otherwise. It is a silly rule of WP that people must agree the article is wrong before it can be corrected and if people like it wrong then it stays wrong - first one in is presumed correct. Proving a negative, that ABC is not a production company, is always a nigh impossible feat. And a most extremely frustrating task to undertake.

I take great exception to everything being American just because Americans are the majority contributors and the servers are in USA and one person started with the most basic of research which led to inaccurate information from the start of the main article. And yes i speak of the main article and the episode list interchangeably since the issue is with both of them. (This is also why i kept it on the main page in the first place as it is not exclusive to the ep list.) Yet once someone says it is American it is a mountain to climb to gain consensus that something is not American. The two main cast members are recognisable names to the American 13-34 demographic but they are both Canadians. American national pride vs Canadian national pride. 198 years ago the two countries were at war over basically this principal. Now it is an internet discussion page.

I could just tag the article for its American skew but given i already have a rewrite done that would be a silly tagging to do. But there is no consensus to remove the American skew because to have Canadian data on a Canadian show (potentially) offends the Americans. Is it not obvious that this Canadian is very much offended by what she reads in the article? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The image added into this article was not added by me. It was in fact DC Fan 5 who did so and is now banned anyways. If you want the image removed so be it, it does look a little odd sitting there without an explanation.

Perhaps I was not being clear, my concerns were how both ratings would fit together. For example would we put them both in the episode list table? Would we make a seperate table? All these were addressed in my original post. At no stage did I voice an objection against the adding of Canadian ratings.

Google indexing may not be accurate but IT IS a good indication of when the websites were first created. If you have evidence that the GlobalTV Rookie Blue site existed before the 17 May 2010 then you MIGHT have some ground to say that the article is in an American POV. But the fact remains, that the material was readily available from ABC and not from Global at the time.

In resonse to the following:

The numbers from the pilot in the main article present the American success but make no mention of it being the most successful Canadian drama to date. The American POV is not just in the episode list or the infobox, but is throughout the articles.

My response on Talk:Rookie Blue as of 09:26, 11 July 2010

The only thing you could point to is the ratings inside the receptions section, in which you have stated yourself sources about the Canadian ratings are hard to come by. I would be more than glad to add something about Canadian ratings if there were a viable source.

I stand by what I said and you are also free to do the same. In fact it was you yourself that pointed there was a conflict in numbers with the premier between BBM and Canwest, meaning anything you or I could have written would have to be deleted anyway.

In response to the follow

ABC is not one of the production companies. Hence ABC is a foreign broadcaster.

I never said ABC did production. I just said it was a joint venture. It interesting in the source you listed says "CANWEST AND ABC JOIN FORCES". It is odd that you ticked US for "Production Co." above and still say ABC is a foreign broadcaster. You also say "ABC bought the show afterward." After where? Sources indicate that ABC picked up the show in April 2009. Only a month or two after Global picked it up and that's because Global had a first look deal at the show. There is no reference to a commissioned pilot by either party as there was none. There was a PILOT SCRIPT but it never eventuated. Missy who was the first to be cast came into the project in June 2009. Production began mid July 2009.

In response to the follow

If you want to really pursue the joint venture, equal status.... put back that it is set in Boston, get a custom infobox allowing 2 official websites, allow 2 columns of ratings in the episode list, and everything else also be both.

The shot about Boston is uncalled for. I never added that, neither did any of the reputable contributors. It was vandalism that was quickly corrected. About the infobox, I will start exploring options on how to such a thing. As for 2 columns: That was my first post among others. It seemed to me you just elected to go with the comprehensive table for both countries. Something I am also fine with.

For the record. I am interested in seeing both American AND Canadian material on these entries. I need to know if is this the case with you or do you stand by the following on Talk:Rookie Blue as of 22:29, 9 July 2010?

Considering it is a Canadian show i actually would love to see most American mention stricken from the article.

Do not continue to over-sensationalise the situation. I have already addressed the picture and link on more than one occasion and proven that it was an edit made in good faith not in an American POV. I have already addressed the ratings situation in the main article twice now. Unless your willing to start going after the use of American media in the critical reception section and attempt a censor of their opinion, I urge you to stop pursuing this line of argument. A disagreement about whether the ABC constitutes as a foreign broadcaster in the infobox DOES NOT equate to the whole article being in an American POV. This is the talk page for the episode list, not the main article entry. Please re-address your argument to the situation at hand, which is the ratings. Meowies (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "CANWEST AND ABC JOIN FORCES". You do know that is a pun on it being a police show.

Look at List of Merlin episodes. That is what i want to have. It took me until some 19-20 hours ago to have a prime example come to mind. The BBC has less data available and is the domestic broadcaster. There are more comprehensive ratings available for the foreign (NBC & Syfy USA) broadcaster. The table of ratings i threw together was well quickly thrown together and based on another use, thus being not the best example but merely something.

Regarding the picture i still prefer a screenshot, mostly for concerns about dimensions as a poster draws attention to it due to it filling such a large portion of the infobox. For my love of adding in a hint of Canada two of the screenshots coïncidentally have a Bank of Montreal logo somewhere in the background. At infobox size only the most observant would notice the few pixels it would comprise. Also, the logo used by ABC in promotional material is not what appears in the show itself, not even close to it. That is what is in the infobox and at the top of the episode list article at this time. It is ok as a logo but for those not aware it is American promotional material it has no relation to the show on a global level.

I ticked USA for Production Co. above because E1 Entertainment is a multi-national company with offices in New York, Nashville, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, Montreal and Toronto.

The American POV lies in the subtleties. I added the Canadian critical reception to counter the exclusive American coverage in that section. It is a mix of omission and putting Canadian info 2nd. I had this on the main talk page because it covered both articles. You moved it here. I am abiding by your request to discuss this on the episode list talk. Otherwise, get a merge done to put this all back to the main talk. The two of us discussing this on two talk pages is silly.

I'll convert my copy to like the Merlin list. That should allow you time to say if that style of presentation will be agreeable to yourself. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Canadian English

One other request that might have been overlooked: Is there any objection to using Canadian English on the articles? That would mean that outside of quotations and proper names that use American neighbour, honour, and the like would have the "u", dates would read as "22 July 2010" instead of "July 22, 2010", and punctuation would only appear inside of quotation marks when the source has such - a quote ending a sentence which is not the end of a sentence in the source would appear as, which he described as "the Meredith surrogate". delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 12:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree the article should use Canadian English but disagree that the DD MM YY is the proper long-date format for Canadian articles. That's more of a British format, and isn't widely used in Canada, and appears to be generally disfavoured by WP:CANADA members. The American long format (MM DD, YY) is used by a vast majority of Canadian English speakers and reliable sources. –xeno^talk 12:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? *&%&)(%$$*!@%#^%^ I just converted all of it on my wiki. What a pain that was. I use dmy all of the time myself, from Kindergarten through this moment decades later. See now my basis such here is that is that the article on Canadian English itself uses dmy. I am looking through WP:CANADA but so far i can not see anything stating mdy be used or example of such. Care to direct me? <bang head here> delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 14:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't... (Canadian English) –xeno^talk 16:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. Only dates are in references. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 19:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Off topic, continue at user talk:Deliriousandlost. –xeno^talk 19:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Found a long discussion that began over the Governors General articles. Reading now. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 14:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Date format issue

Since the date format here was MDY first, and the linked articles were all created after, they should probably follow MDY rather than DMY. I'll let you fix it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Rookie Blue episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090426043701/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ibd7cdb7bf8ae318e77d42873776c1463 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3ibd7cdb7bf8ae318e77d42873776c1463

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Rookie Blue episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405085543/http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=040710_03 to http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=040710_03
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/tv-is-not-dead-just-on-a-summer-pause/article1637420/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)