Talk:2012–13 United States network television schedule

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 11 July 2012 (UTC), see discussion.
delete, November 22 2011, see discussion.
Delete, October 15 2011, see discussion.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article 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. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as High-importance).

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Shows

Should we add new shows to this list since most of the information is on the Futon critic of Devwatch

These are all ordered to pilot, so please let me know whether or not these can be added what so ever.TVWolf (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not guaranteed to be picked up for the next television season yet. If you added it now the administrators would probably undo it. You should wait until they are officially announced for next season, which should be soon. Imadethisusernamemyself 22:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imadethisusernamemyself (talk • contribs)

Accuracy of information

Recently, an edit regarding the airing of Primetime: What Would You Do? on ABC's Friday night schedule was reverted to display Primetime as airing in the 9 p.m. ET timeslot, citing a claim that it was used in the 2011–12 United States network television schedule article. However, this actually creates an inaccuaracy in the information for the fact that Primetime has not aired in its original newsmagazine format on ABC since about 2007-2008, only offshoot series that focus on certain topics previously used the Primetime branding have aired since then; What Would You Do? itself has not used the Primetime sub-branding since 2010 and it is also different from Primetime in that it has more of a hidden camera situation format. The main thing about Wikipedia articles is that the information has to be accurate as possible so that it won't be questioned for reliability/inaccuracy issues. TVtonightOKC (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are different formats of the show, and What Would You Do? is the current format, so with different formats, Primetime would be just fine. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on ABC's official site, they have the show listed as What Would You Do?. Therefore, I will take a bold move and change the title in the grid and reference this cite in that article as well. We should remain consist with the official schedule published by the television networks. swinquest (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similar issue last year: Talk:2011–12 United States network television schedule#Primetime vs. Primetime: What Would You Do?. I would go by the end result of that discussion, which was Primetime. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Saturday

Please don't remove NBC from Saturday's programming grid.

Yes, it's all reruns, but so what? To not even list it would cause some people to think that NBC doesn't run prograaming at all on Saturday.

Just merely list it as "Encore Programming", and be done with it...no harm, no foul.

Vjmlhds 15:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed!! As I stated above, if the official network lists it on their schedule, it should be on here. swinquest (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An IP just reverted again, despite the discussion. I restored, then saw the discussion later. Who on earth thought it was a good idea to leave out a network from one night's table simply because it has no original programming? That's absurd. --Drmargi (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because last year I said that there's no original programming on Saturdays it doesn't need to be there. And this is for original programming only. If there's encores on a night with original programming, then you can add encores, but when it's all encores, it's wrong to add it. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? This is the 2012-13 season, not the 2012-13 original programming schedule. OF COURSE the encores need to be there -- the reader still needs to know what the NBC Saturday schedule is, even if it's just encore programming. What's wrong is leaving a network off a table for an arbitrary, and frankly, nonsensical reason. Regardless, consensus here is to include. --Drmargi (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the reverting, but it might be better if at the beginning of the article, there should be a note about NBC Saturdays. For example, "NBC is also excludeded on only Saturday evenings for their encore programming.". I'm only doing this because it's pointless to add the NBC Saturday schedule without at least one original series. What do you think about my idea? 68.44.51.49 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the 2012-2013 season, not selected parts of it. That means we include all of the season, not just the new shows. Leaving NBC Saturday out is WP:POV, and misleads the reader, who could be forgiven for thinking NBC is off the air on Saturday night. Frankly, I don't see why including encore programming is such a big deal. NBC includes it in their schedule, so it belongs in this article. I can't see an argument for removing it. --Drmargi (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has just removed NBC and added a rather confrontational hidden note telling others to stop reverting. I've removed it again and referred him here, so he can engage in discussion. --Drmargi (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I will let you keep the encore programming, under one condition, though. If any original programming is on NBC on Saturdays for burn-odds because of cancellation, then I will add that show and cut down the encore time. I WILL NOT USE SEPARATE SECTIONS! There was a fight about this last year, and the encores were removed off the schedule. I would like that, of course, and I still recommend removing the encores of the Saturday schedule and making that note at the top of the page in the paragraph with MyNetworkTV being always encores and Ion Television only airing Flashpoint and The Listener saying what I said above earlier this month. What do you think? 68.44.51.49 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think consensus is to keep the NBC listing, and that it's not up to you to decide if we get to keep it or not, much less to set conditions. This is a collaborative article, not yours. The sooner you accept that and moderate your tone, the more collegial this will be. --Drmargi (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ABC and Fox Saturday

I added midseason follow ups to the ABC and Fox Saturday night schedules.

Traditionally after football season, ABC airs a mix of movies, encores, burnoffs, and specials on Saturday nights, so it should be noted in the schedule.

I added a reference to show that Cops will indeed return to Saturday nights on Fox after football season, and until further information comes out suggesting otherwise, assume encores will air at 9 p.m. (just like they have all season this year).

Vjmlhds 19:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I really think that the schedules should be what they will be announced as in a few months. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your hang-up is about Saturdays, but knock it off. College football only goes until December, and then ABC and Fox need to go to other programming. Fox has announced that COPS will return to Saturdays after football season, and ABC always does movies/encores/specials on Saturdays after football season. Please leave it alone, thank you. Vjmlhds 17:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added NASCAR on FOX to the Saturday Spring schedule. Fox airs 12-13 NASCAR races per year from February (Daytona 500) to early June. Half of those races air on Saturday night, thus it was enough to justify mentioning it on the schedule. Vjmlhds 14:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume shows will be placed in the area that they were placed last year. I know what you mean, but usually sports are never listed unless they are on the schedule. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere Dates

Premiere dates are important for reference. I say when premiere dates for networks are announced, everything without a premiere date on the schedule should be deleted because there's no guarantee that those shows could be placed in those timeslots. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on Fox

I don't think NASCAR on Fox should be here. It is not on the scheduling plan in the first place. The OT is on the plan, but NASCAR is not. It needs to go! 68.44.51.49 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree. I, think we should remove or change NASCAR on Fox to Fox Sports, as a sport hasn't been confirmed. TBran dl ey 22:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting rid of it. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Television

There is no need to make a note at the top for Ion Television at the top! We can add the shows on the schedule! 68.44.51.49 (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --TBran dl ey 04:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula on NBC

There already WAS a Dracula TV series over 20 years ago! Dracula: The Series, to be exact. Now what makes you think there's going to be another Dracula series this fall, huh? Answer me that! AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe [http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/07/24/nbc-orders-new-dracula-series/142695/ this source, which is also use in the article. The series is a co-production between NBC and Sky Living in UK. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Date Rule

I'm considering a new rule on the schedule. Sometimes when I see certain things without a date, I don't believe that they will air in that slot. So from now on, I believe that nothing should go on the schedule without a date, unless it moves to a different timeslot in the future (i.e., Shark Tank), has a results show (i.e., Dancing with the Stars), etc. Other than that, please don't add shows without dates. It drives me crazy! 68.44.51.49 (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, this really doesn't make sense. Perhaps if it were written clearly -- what date? Second, you don't make rules. You can build consensus, but "it drives me crazy" is a lousy reason for any sort of change. Instead of trying to tell others what to do, why not make what you want much clearer, and give us a reason that's beneficial to the article for what you propose? --Drmargi (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I can make a consensus (a strong one). I have another reason: Because at this point, if there's a midseason show on the schedule, it's hard to prove that that will be the correct timeslot. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can make an argument; a group reaches consensus. There's nothing you can do unilaterally. And your whole business with the time slot still doesn't make sense. --Drmargi (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Neighbors 8:30 pm/7:30 pm central timeslot

http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/suburgatory it says it on Suburgatory's official page that it's season premieres on October 17, 2012 at 9:30 pm/8:30pm central, and that's when The Neighbors moves to the 8:30 pm/7:30 pm central timeslot, so that's why there must be a follow-up. 67.86.242.174 (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then put it back, but put the source with it this time. --Drmargi (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grimm

Is currently airing on Mondays on NBC with new episodes, should this not be reflected on the schedule? Darrenhusted (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Then, add it if you'd like. TBran dl ey 18:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

69.207.24.186 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgettable

Why is Unforgettable in renewals? That would mean it would be renewed for the 2013–14 season. Summer 2013 is the 2012–13 season. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, and there seems to be an edit war brewing with Unforgettable appearing and then disappearing off the renewal list. I've taken it off for now, as logically the 2013-14 season starts officially on the 23 September, 2013 and Unforgettable has not yet been renewed to air beyond that date; it's scheduled to air sometime between late May - Early September. As a result I would say it's not renewed for this season and shouldn't be listed in this article. While its renewal came after the official upfront it should still be listed in the 2011-12 page not on this one. If someone can offer a legitimate reason why it should stay in this years renewels then please get chatting below. (Richardm9 (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I will remove it from the schedule. 24.164.159.145 (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not. It's staying put so anyone will know about the unusual cancelation, then renewel. It's better to leave it alone. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This is an exceptional situation, and it needs a bit of clarification. There is no downside to including it, and the only reason I've seen for removing it is nit-picking. --Drmargi (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not leave it alone. It needs to go on last season's schedule, the 2011–12 schedule. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I have yet to see an argument why it belongs there and only there. It's an unusual circumstance, and there's no harm in mentioning the cancellation then renewal here. Our job is to inform, not follow rigid rules, particularly one editor's version of them. You need to remember this is a collaborative project, and that others have an equal voice in decision making. --Drmargi (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've already outlined my argument above and agree with 68.44.51.49 and 24.164.159.14 it should be on last season's schedule. While it is unusual being cancelled and then renewed a similar situation occurred last year with Breaking In (officially cancelled in May and then renewed during the summer) on FOX, and that isn't listed in the 2011/12 renewals because, quite rightly, it wasn't renewed. Unforgettable is listed in the CBS returning series, and a place in the renewal section is just illogical. If any registered wikipedians want to way in feel free. Richardm9 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgettable Request for comment

Should Unforgettable be listed as a renewal in the 2012/13 United States network television schedule, some say yes because it was cancelled and then renewed for a Summer run in 2013 while others think no because renewels are for the 2013/14 season which begins in September 2013. Richardm9 (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Have we so totally lost sight of what we're here to do -- to build an encyclopedia designed to inform our readers -- thats a single sentence merits this kind of action? This is patently absurd, driven by slavish adherence to arbitrary rules rather than being guided by the need to inform. "They didn't do it before" is the least possibly persuasive argument for not including Unforgettable as has been done now; if anything, change what's on the Fox page instead! Neither is "thems the rules" at all persuasive, especially given we have no rules around here. Try a little flexibility with an eye to effective communication. --Drmargi (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Margi, I think I have been really flexible - I started a talk page, haven't edited Unforgettable's status in the renewal section since I opened it and have welcomed others opinions. If the consensus is to keep it in the renewel section, I am happy to do that and that's why I asked for opinions from other editors. Sorry if that's been misconstrued. Richardm9 (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it should be kept there since the viewers should be aware that the show was cancelled and then renewed. If it's deleted from that page, it will confuse the viewers and they probably will not know that it has been renewed after it was cancelled. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BattleshipMan and others here; we have a solid citation as to the cancellation and subsequent 'un'-cancellation. I am not seeing an overemphasis on that, so the only reason left is one of logic: does it belong in one season or another? Since this article isn't designed to deal with the unusual circumstances surrounding the renewal of Unforgettable, we are left with little choice but to list it as is has been by Dmargi and others. I won't elaborate on the motives of the IP account; it appears to be an alt account for an existing user. I have very little confidence in any user who hides behind anonymity for 4 years; if its unfair to give less credit to any arguments proposed by such, then I'm unfair. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Unforgettable's cancellation should go on the previous year's schedule. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it, do you? The show was previously and hen it was un-cancelled. This is an acceptable situation and it should be kept on this page. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Obviously, in some quarters, rigidity is far more important than being informative. --Drmargi (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, excuse me. I was trying to point something out on a unusual circumstances surrounding the situation with the cancellation and then renewal of Unforgetable. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY! I wasn't responding to you, but to the post above you! I agree with you and was being ironic (spelling sarcastic)! --Drmargi (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. Unforgetable should be kept there since it's a cricumstanial situation regarding it's cancellation and renewal. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blazing Colors

All the colors in Saturday's table make my eyes hurt. Is it unreasonable to have someone put in lighter tones? 207.255.209.41 (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get how you feel, but we can't do that for you. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the "blazing colors" being too bright. There are no fixed colors on tables, and these colors can be changed at any time by consensus, so "we can't do that for you" is nonsense. The red and grey are very difficult colors to use as background, particularly for black text. Background colors in tables are typically much, much lighter so that the text, rather than the color, is prominent. These tables are very problematic because the bright colors are hard to read and make it difficult for adaptive technology such as screen readers to separate text from background. They need changing. --Drmargi (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The light blue should be used for local programming, yellow to indicate the current schedule, lavender to indicate a series being burned off, green for sports programming, silver for encore programming, and orange for movies, starting in 2013-14. J4lambert (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to be bold and change red to black. I understand this is sudden, but I think it could work. Since any cancelled show has had regular airtime, it would almost certainly have an article and therefore be a blue link. As someone with colorblindness, this is much easier to view. If a special is shown, which seems to be out of favor now (Revenge for Real, Christmas specials, etc.) then the text can be white or use "span" to not have the black overshadow it. Input appreciated. PS: A long time ago, someone changed red to "tomato" (light red but not pink) but it was reverted. CSB radio (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've reverted it. Good intentions, bad execution. A low-vision person would struggle to read the text (it's bad enough for a sighted person!) and a screen reader would be unable to. See WP:COLOR regarding selection of colors. I'd take it back to tomato, frankly. At least the reader can read through that text.

OK. Thanks for the feedback. So what would you (anyone) say is a better choice? List of colors: N-Z#Colors by shade CSB radio (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I'd go back to tomato. It has the same effect as red, and is far easier to read through. --Drmargi (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done CSB radio (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted an editor restoring the bright red. CSB, you might want to make the change on the 2013-14 article, and perhaps back up a few years as well, referencing this discussion. --Drmargi (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'd encourage lightening up the gray a couple shades and using a softer yellow as well. Those dark/bright colors make it hard for low vision users or users with screen readers. I find the text in grey boxes hard to read, and I have normal vision. --Drmargi (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the commitment.

Doing... CSB radio (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting. This is long overdue. --Drmargi (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gray

Done CSB radio (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MUCH better! --Drmargi (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help! CSB radio (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this yellow is ok? I'm worried it might be too light. Despite this, I still think it was the best yellow that wasn't too similar or gross-looking. CSB radio (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's just right. It actually makes me wonder if the orange could be lightened up a touch. The table is far easier to read now. --Drmargi (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was totally fine with the red being lightened up, but I don't like the yellow and gray being lightened up. Might as well just get rid of all the colors. Of course that is my opinion and nothing will likely change. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't get rid of the colors, then it wouldn't be clear what's happening when. The reason I've been lightening other colors is because with the lighter red, the others look too dark by comparison.

Doctor: Yeah, I was thinking that too. Even the red looks too dark now. (Do you think that should change?) CSB radio (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a touch vivid alongside the others, but I wasn't sure you'd want to go on another color hunt. Jay Jay, the color changes are not for esthetic purposes; they're to bring the article in line with both WP:COLOR and to make the site 508 compliant. As I noted earlier, low vision readers who need screen readers or other assistance can't read the text when the colors are too bright, and that's not acceptable. American law (and Wikipedia is incorporated in the U.S. so it must comply) requires websites to be accessible to users with disabilities, something it does a piss poor job of training its editors to do. At least this page will get in the ballpark. Pretty colors are secondary to access by readers with visual impairments. --Drmargi (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These two colors are too confusing.

Orange indicates movies.

Red indicates series being burned off and other irregularly scheduled programs, including specials.

I suggest changing the orange one into , which doesn't fall into the red color range.--Steelbar (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea for the colors. I think that the lighter grey and yellow was a good call, along with making the burn off color less bright. However, the tomato color is very close to the orange color for movies and specials. I would recommend using pink, which is a light, airy color. I use that color for burn-offs on my fan schedule for some shows, located on my sandbox. You can check it out to see if it looks nice: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:CrazyKid24/sandbox#Sunday . I know that the page is messed up or incomplete in a few areas, but you can see what the burn-off shows would look like. CrazyKid24 (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC) CrazyKid24[reply]

Made In Jersey

So we know that Made In Jersey was burned off on Saturdays. But on the schedule it does not show a burn-off. Was it now considered not a burn-off? Also, the topic above talks about the "bright colors". Maybe the red color for burned off shows could be changed to a pink? It wouldn't be as hard on the eyes. -- CrazyKid24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burn-off is just media jargon for episodes of shows they broadcast after they're cancelled. There's no official status per se, and it really doesn't need to be identified in the table. --Drmargi (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Shows

I think the summer shows should be in another article to split up the article. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? They're part of the 2012-13 season, not a season of their own, and the article is well within WP:SIZERULE guidelines. There's no need. --Drmargi (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, we had this same argument that no summer shows should be allowed on the schedule. This year, I want it split up because the summer is NOT part of the regular season. This is REGULAR SEASON SHOWS ONLY!!! 68.44.51.49 (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should stay in the article because I think they are part of the season. I know the university I attend considers the summer to be the last part of the school year. Besides, when/where was it agreed/stated that this should be "regular" season shows only?

Also, to quote the WP:SIZERULE, "[Rules for breaking up articles] also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table" as you are suggesting. CSB radio (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK 68., let's dial it down and remember this is a collaborative project. Caps and exclamation points won't help. The article is about the 2012-13 television season, not the season as you care to define it. The 2012-13 season includes the summer season; the days when summer was all reruns is over, and there is no need for a separate article. Moreover, why separate content that is clearly subsumed under the title (the error in narrative notwithstanding) into another article, making it harder to access for readers, because of some dated, arbitrary line between the summer programming and the remainder of the season. You already have three divisions to the season; why is this fourth one not appropriate as well. If you have a reason beyond your belief that summer and the so-called "regular" season are somehow separate, articulate it and gain consensus. Otherwise, move along and get ready for the addition of summer. --Drmargi (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having one article for May - September 2012, one article for September 2012 - May 2013, one article for May - September 2013, etc. is ridiculous. What about the shows which span that rather varying and secretive "end of season" date? By US reckoning season 3 of Rookie Blue started "in" the 2011-12 season and then continues "out" of the season and concluded just prior to the 2012-13 season; in Canada season 3 of Rookie Blue started during the 2011-12 season and concluded during the 2012-13 season. Or even better, where would you put The L.A. Complex given it started in the US during the 2011-12 season, was shown throughout the summer, and concluded during the US 2012-13 season even though The CW ran their 'summer season' into October?
The tables are not sortable but i don't see how that really matters here. For years these have been very comprehensive tables/lists and this desire to separate maybe 8% of the information because it doesn't conform to the "in season" time period doesn't make much sense.
Before anyone gets the idea to do this to all articles for all countries i should remind you that in Canada the season begins with the Monday of the week that includes the first day of September and continues through the week preceding the subsequent first day of September. These articles have a similar approach - start of season through day before start of next season. I would love it if such comprehensive articles existed for the Canadian network schedules but it seems we get to settle for 'how it started' each season and nothing about changes along the way. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian season isn't germane to the discussion, given this is about the American TV season, but the point regarding shows that start late in the spring and run into the summer is a good one, and yet another reason not to split the article. The view that there is a discrete summer season is an outdated one, and programming runs across all manner of sub-seasons within the September-August broadcast season. --Drmargi (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is done to American articles is often done to Canadian articles; Neilsen doesn't really publish for public consumption a definitive division of seasons but BBM in Canada does. These articles roughly follow the Canadian season more so than the American 'in season'. Humorous note: i think there is one season of Flashpoint that spans 3 broadcast seasons in Canada, or at least comes very close to it. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've removed the language from the article that describes the season as September to May, which should probably be done for any prior years where there is summer schedule data included. A separate summer season is a 20th century idea, and a separate article would reflect that notion. --Drmargi (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Massive ratings tables

Now that the summer issue seems in hand, another one reared its head. A new editor started two ratings tables in the article, one for total viewers and one for the key demo, identifying the highest rated show of the week. With all due respect for the amount of work he put into them, a quick glance at the table reveals two things: if there's football, football is generally the most watched by both groups, unseated only by an occasional special program such as the Oscars. Otherwise, it's NCIS. Big wow. And so it has been for donkey's years. We don't need two 52-row tables that are struggling to find enough content to construct a meaningful table (does it really need a column for the network when the same show on the same network is on top nearly every week?), particularly given they've never been included in the past. The recent mania for addition of elaborate ratings tables that impart very little information (c'mon -- hands up those who really know, in simple English, what a rating and a share are, and why 18-49 is the key demo) has run roughshod over WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE. These tables take up massive amounts of space, increase load time for articles and give the reader very little in return. --Drmargi (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Up All Night

Why is season addition, subtraction, status.. not listed? 74.77.50.142 (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgettable

Unforgettable does not need to be in the renewal section for this schedule; it should be there for the prior year's schedule. I'm removing it. 24.164.159.145 (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not. I brought it back. It's an acceptable situation since the show was previously cancelled and then renewed. Therefore, it will remain on that article since it's not airing either in this season or the next season, not to mention it's was once on 2011-12 season on the full order. It's apparent that Unforgettable had an unexpected renewal. Therefore, it should remain on the article as is. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is to keep it. Do not revert over consensus; you must gain new consensus before removing it. Battleship Man was absolutely correct to restore it to the list. --Drmargi (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It's an acceptable situation since the show was previously cancelled and then renewed." And so should be noted on the 2011-12 article since that is when it was renewed. That list is for the outcome of this season and Unforgettable is still TBD for scheduling let alone result. Battleship Man was absolutely incorrect and so was Drmargi for validating his action. Scheduling of summer shows is only starting to come out in the past few days so some patience is appropriate. Declaring it renewed (which by its placement implies a 3rd season) is highly inaccurate. Just look at the list, for any network in any year, and you should see it is renewals based on this season's broadcast for next season. The Unforgettable note is for this season and its renewal came based on last season's broadcast. It doesn't belong there on the 2012-13 article but rather on the 2011-12 article.
Consensus does not equal correct or accurate or logical, just that some people agree on something. That there was much discussion on this already is quite funny since those discussing it seem to fail to comprehend the structure they have created or/and otherwise abided by for any other show. Both the cancellation and the renewal come during the summer of the 2011-12 season.
OMG what a headache. I look at the list and i see it has been renewed and since i know season 2 hasn't been broadcast yet that tells me it was for a 3rd season prior to broadcast because it is in that list. Then i read the note and it basically is telling me the show really shouldn't be listed here but we wanted to publicise it in as many places as we could to get the word out. The arguement Battleship Man is repeatedly making is really for why it belongs in both the renewal and cancellation sections of the 2011-12 article but so few people really notice what he is writing. Does he intend that arguement? I shall assume nay. Nevertheless he is giving the perfect reason for why it should be in 3 lists on the 2011-12 article (new full season, renewed, & cancelled) and only in 1 list (so far) (returning) on the 2012-13 article. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Unforgettable is neither airing this season or the next (so far) because it's aired this summer in 13 episodes. It was then previously cancelled and then it got an unexpected renewal. Not many are aware of this and they tend to forget that Unforgettable has been renewed after it was previously cancelled, not to mention that it's airing this summer and not on the 2013-14 season. People should be aware of that, just like Flashpoint (TV series) aired in the US on CBS and then it moved to Ion Television, which it why we have Ion Television on the Renewals and cancellations section, as well as last season and put Flashpoint on the cancellation on there and last season's renewal. There are at times we have to make people aware and we have to settle compromise, which it's why we have to keep Unforgettable on this article. When we get to Summer, we can put the yellow color mark on CBS summer schedule where will air it's new episodes of Unforgettable because that's how we should update the status of each shows on this season. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

summers shows..

if the article is spanning including summer shows (sept 12 to aug 13 according to opening line) then there should be addition of TNT/TBS/USA networks Since these three major networks actually dominate the summer market of television for several years. And NBC/CBS/ABC have only recently starting adding a ton of shows for the summer seasons. Especially since USA alone has 5 tv shows that starts in the summer and ends in the summer most of the time. only a few extend into the following year (2013-2014 seasons) eg) USA has: Burn Notice, White Collar, Suits, Royal Pains and Covert Affairs and set to premier at least 1-2 more new summer shows this season. —173.206.145.183 (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because those are all cable channels. This is a schedule for major "networks."--CSB radio (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smashed officially cancelled now.

source link: http://www.tvfanatic.com/2013/04/smash-finale-scheduled-for-may-26/

2hr series finale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.166.109 (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renewals errors

In the renewals section, I've noticed that some shows (American Dad! for example) have their current season (2012-13) listed. This is wrong. I'll get to this eventually, but the whole section needs to be checked for these inconsistencies. Just a review of how it works: Sometime during or just after a show's season ends, the network decides it's renewed for the following season. Example: The Show finishes it's third season in May 2013; the network renews it. We list it on the 2012-13 schedule under renewals as "renewed for a fourth season on May XX, 2013." We should also probably check past years, too. CSB radio (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep in mind FOX for its animation television shows reviews them not by year by year anymore for some time but more like 2-3 seasons. Example, when Cleveland show first aired (Season 1) they renewed for season 2 even thought it had only aired 2-3 episode of the pilot season. With the pilot episode even being released months early to get people a test bite of the program. Just an FYI on FOX's animation shows. also fox isn't the only network known to do this. CBS has done this before charle sheens leaving of two and half men, and I believe even big bang theory was renew for 2 seasons. Sometimes the networks don't review every single tv show by a year by year basis. Sometimes its based on how they view the show as a lead in. (ie CSI: Miami pulled strong numbers when it aired is last season of 10. but season csi: ny was tanking in comparision during that season and the network instead using the ratings to kill csi:ny as one would expect killed csi:miami off because of cost). It seems these netowrks are starting to follow more with TNT/TBS/USA renewal statuses (they have actually renewed shows for 3 seasons, and when the 3rd season from the last renewal has occurred they struggle between a renewal or not (burn notice and royal pains have been renewed at one point for 2 seasons at a time)

American Dad!'s page isn't listed this way. Family Guy doesn't do this anymore. Regardless, a renewal for last fall still shouldn't be on this year's schedule; it should be on last year's schedule. I'll go through the renewal section and fix any problems.

PS: sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ :) CSB radio (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the voice

on tuesday still have two hours。--Qa003qa003 (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tuesday Voice broadcast two hours, followed by a screening grimm, with no replay arrangements in other programs.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only time the Voice broadcasts 2 hours on tuesday is during live results. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland show cancelled?

according to this list by tv by the numbers same website of which has been used for citation on these cancelations dated today may 10th lists Cleveland show as cancelled? http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/05/10/list-of-renewedcanceled-broadcast-scripted-shows-from-2012-13-season-updated/182190/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.72.186 (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no official announcement other than the fact that no new episodes are going to be produced which pretty much means it will be cancelled. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should protect this article

We've been having some editors from IP addresses making unhelpful edits on this article and 2013–14 United States network television schedule. I think we need to semi-protect this article from dealing with constant revert edits and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2012–13 United States network television schedule. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on 2012–13 United States network television schedule. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]