Talk:Super Bowl 50

Nielsen rating

I noticed that the rating for the game is listed as being a 34.1. I would make sure to look at another source or two. The reason for this is because the Super Bowl typically gets well over a 40. If it is 34.1, that would be an extraordinarily low number for the Super Bowl. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That number is just what they call the "overnight rating". in the next week or so they should release the more final numbers, as well as local numbers for Carolina and Colorado. Jdavi333 (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Marlee Matlin

Matlin is the first person to perform the national anthem at three Super Bowls. This is clear from List of national anthem performers at the Super Bowl, which is well sourced, but there's no concise way to source it in this article. What's the best way to indicate that? Powers ^T 20:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Half-time show

Is it worth mentioning the black panther tribute aspects of Beyonce's performance[1][2]? Much more political than one would normally expect to see in a Super Bowl half time show, but not sure if it is notable enough. --Legis (talk - contribs) 22:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I was assuming that it would not be mentioned in this article, but in the separate halftime show article. However, I don't think any politically charged content is relevant here, as the article is purely about the game and musical content of the show. For example, no one has mentioned the obvious and open gay-themes in the show, in regards to the numerous rainbow colored objects such as the stage, towels, and microphones. Jdavi333 (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding? No one has mentioned any "obvious and open gay themes" because there weren't any. Honestly... – PeeJay 01:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Most watched U.S. TV broadcast in history

The National Football League (NFL) has said that Super Bowl 50 was the most-watched broadcast in history. Here's the link from NFL.com. I don't know why Rowssusan (talk) keeps reverting this. This came straight from the league itself. It should be accepted, IMO. I'm sure that Dsaun100 (talk) will agree with me on this. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I do agree. It is sourced, and it should not be removed. The "third-most watched Super Bowl" statement refers to the average viewers, not the peak, which was what the sourced listed. Dsaun100 (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't. I think it should be average viewers because it goes over the entire length of the broadcast. It doesn't matter what the viewership was at a snapshot during one moment of the game. posty (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Dsaun100 and Charlesaaronthompson, I believe your intentions were good, but the two of you have been bamboozled the NFL's misleading little blip report about the viewership numbers. I'll explain how. This situation is a great example of why you always have to be extremely careful whenever you read a story from a company that is reporting about it's own accomplishments.

To begin with, you both are under a big misunderstanding about which viewership number – average or peak/total - is the most important. It is the average viewership that is most important. By a landslide. Average is the #1 key metric of viewership not only for advertisers and advertising executives, but also for media reporting. This is why whenever weekly or overnight ratings are released for TV programs, it is the average number of viewers that is always given and focused on by almost all the mainstream media who report on it, not the peak number. This is because average viewership gives the number of viewers, on average, for an entire broadcast from beginning to end. As editor Posty correctly explained, peak viewership only gives a snapshot during a broadcast, when viewership reached its highest point. And keep in mind that peak viewership for a Super Bowl only lasts for only a few minutes, even though the broadcast airs for several hours.

So. for Super Bowl 50, the viewership number being reported by almost the entire mainstream media is the average of 111.9-million. This reporting includes the top trade publications for the entertainment and advertising industries, such as Variety ([3]), Adweek ([4]), and Adverstising Age ([5]).

Now about NFL.com's deceit about the viewership numbers for Super Bowl 50...

Read this report from NBC Sports, which explains the deception and supports everything I've told you. The one part says it all: "CBS announced, and NFL.com trumpeted, that 167 million viewers tuned in for the game, 'making it the most-watched single broadcast per Nielsen’s Fast Total Audience Estimates.' That’s fine, but the total audience isn’t one of the standard metrics for determining TV ratings. The key number is average audience. For Super Bowl 50, the average audience was 111.9 million."

So, the 167-million figure for Super Bowl 50 is simply the peak viewership, a minor metric rarely ever reported by the media. Nielsen said the peak number lasted for a mere 6 minutes of the broadcast, yet this statistic is solely what NFL.com is using as the basis for its claim that the game was "the most-watched program in television history". Obviously, NFL.com is focusing on the peak number for it's own self-serving purposes, and wants to put the viewership numbers in the best possible light. Also, notice how misleading the NFL.com blip is; it purposely leaves out any indication that it is the peak number and not the actual viewership for the whole broadcast. This is precisely why we use secondary, unbiased sources in instances like this, where a company is bragging about itself.

Next, Dsaun100, I want to address your highly inappropriate removal of sourced, notable content, including the sources that verified it! You cannot do that, and I am stunned that you actually removed three top-tier sources from an article. If you felt the peak viewership number was important enough to be added, then that's what you should have done – "add" it; not remove the existing sourced content and replace it with your own. By doing that, you were essentially whitewashing the article and hiding valuable content from readers, solely to feature what you believed to be more important. I even explained very clearly via edit summary why the average viewership figure should be used, including this one.

Based on all of the above, it is clear that the 111.9-million is the actual viewership number that is universally recognized as the "official" viewership result. Therefore, the sourced content about the average number that was inappropriately removed of course must be restored. In terms of the peak number, I will leave that to other editors to decide if it warrants being added. In my opinion it's a junk number because, as Posty alluded to, it only represents the number of viewers for a tiny fraction (about 2%) of the broadcast. Rowssusan (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rowssusan: The Nielsen company says the game's total U.S. television (TV) viewership was an average of 111.9 million viewers (so I will agree with you on that). Here's the reference from the Nielsen company: [6] However, I believe that the Nielsen company is the final authority on U.S. TV ratings; as such, only the reference from the Nielsen company regarding the game's TV ratings should be sufficient enough to be included in the main article itself. I'm fine with it if you want to edit the article to say it was the third-most-watched TV broadcast in U.S. history, using only the Nielsen reference alone. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course Nielsen says that. That's what my entire post was about... Nielsen's numbers. Where do you think every mainstream media outlet in the country got the 111.9-million number from? Nielsen. Nielsen is where all TV ratings, and the reports about them, come from. And the three sources were among the content that was removed. Those three stories reported the Nielsen results. I provided all the links above. Good job finding the Nielsen.com report. It can be used, although a few traditional, secondary sources need to supplement it, especially after a content dispute. One really nice thing about the Nielsen report is that contains a table that shows the number of viewers for every Super Bowl. Rowssusan (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Highly inappropriate? How about you removing sourced information itself, which explicitly states that this Super Bowl was the most-watched telecast in U.S. history. That's inappropriate. If you want to say, in terms of average viewers, that this was the third-most watched Super Bowl, then that's fine. However, to say this was the third-most watched telecast in U.S. history is deceiving, particularly given the fact that there's a source refuting it. Dsaun100 (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, you are still missing the point. Your mistake was not about inserting the 167-million figure; it was about you choosing not to simply add it to the content that was already there, as a supplement. What you inexplicably did instead was remove all of the important, existing content, along with it's three top-tier sources - with no explanation justifying it - and then replaced it with your own inferior and biased content (the NFL issuing a self-serving release). Obviously, almost all of the mainstream media who reported the Nielsen figures used the 111.9-million figure because the average viewership number has been the recognized industry standard for all TV broadcasts for decades. The TV ratings released every week for programs always use the average viewership numbers; never peak numbers. You obviously had no idea that when you removed all that content, you were replacing the most important ratings metric with a much less important one that only registers for a few minutes of a broadcast. In terms of your claim that Super Bowl 50 is not the third-most watched telecast in U.S. history, you're simply incorrect. Did you even read the sources, like this one, this one, this one, and this one? Those are top-notch sources and there are dozens more. In any case, my mistake was making a wholesale revert of your improper edit; what I should have done instead was restore the content you removed, but kept yours as well. Then editors could have discussed the propriety of your content. Hopefully, you will admit your errors in understanding the ratings metrics and especially removing existing sourced content. Rowssusan (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it's you who is incorrect and continues to miss the point. Your condescending attitude isn't helping matters. I offered explanations in the revisions; you just chose to ignore them. There's a difference between the most-watched Super Bowl and the most-watched telecast. Your failure to understand this simple concept isn't the fault of anybody else, but yourself. The NFL's own website noted that this Super Bowl was the most-watched telecast in U.S. history. I already said that mentioning this being the third-most watched Super Bowl, based on average viewers, would be fine. However, you must also concede that this Super Bowl was the most-watched telecast in U.S. history, as sourced by the NFL itself. That's the compromise I'm offering. Dsaun100 (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I read all your "explanations" via edit summaries and they only reinforce everything I've said. Your initial edit to this article (your only edit on Wikipedia in 6 months, and second in almost two years) made it abundantly clear what triggered this situation. Instead of just adding your content, you amazingly chose to remove the key viewership metric and its three reliable sources from the article and replace it with the peak number info! You provided no explanation whatsoever about why you were removing vital, sourced content, instead of just adding your content and leaving the existing content alone. You still have yet to explain why you did that. Therefore, one can only assume it's because you wanted to advance your own faulty belief that the peak number is not only more important that the average number, but that the average number has no importance at all. Otherwise, why would you remove all that content. What you obviously didn't realize when you did that is that the average number was actually far more important than the peak number; that it is in fact the primary metric used for TV ratings. For the remainder of your edit summaries, all you did was keep insisting that it was the most-watched Super Bowl ever, reiterating the misleading peak number. Your edit summaries included, "Super Bowl 50 was actually the most-watched telecast in U.S. history", "The peak was 167.0 million", "Again, this Super Bowl was the most watched telecast ever. It's sourced from the NFL itself", "The numbers listed are the AVERAGE. The content is sourced", and "YOU are removing sourced content and misunderstanding the report from the NFL ITSELF".

Apparently, you either have yet to read the sources, don't understand them, or are simply in denial of the facts. I'll state this as simply as I can. Seven Super Bowls comprise the most-watched telecasts of all-time, based on the key Nielsen metric of average viewership. Super Bowl 50 is #3 on the list. Therefore, it is obviously also the third most-watched Super Bowl of all time, which is precisely what all the sources I provided above verify. The self-serving release by the NFL uses the peak number of 167 million (using Nielsen's Nielsen's Fast Total Audience Estimates), not the average number, as the basis for their misleading claim that it was the most-watched telecast of all time. It's perplexing that you still don't understand this. The NBC Sports story clearly outlines NFL.com's deception with regard to their claim that it's the #1 telecast ever. As that story appropriately points out, the NFL uses an "apples-to-paperclips comparison". On a side note, even that misleading claim by the NFL (that it is the most-watched telecast ever based on peak number) is actually in dispute, because Nielsen previously released numbers saying that last year's Super Bowl had a peak of 168. Nevertheless, it's irrelevant even if Super Bowl 50 had the highest peak number ever because the only number that truly matters when it comes to TV ratings is average viewership, because it measures viewership for an entire broadcast and is the universally accepted standard by advertisers and the media. Rowssusan (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

What's apparent here is your unwillingness to compromise, and instead, push your own faulty agenda, based on ignorance and arrogance. Thus, we're at an impasse, and I guess we won't be adding any information on ratings, since you're so stubborn. I've read those sources, and you, apparently, have yet to read the one from the NFL, which clearly stated that Super Bowl 50 was the most-watched program in U.S. history. Just because you refuse to accept that doesn't make it any less true. Besides, if the numbers are truly all over the place, and the record peak numbers from this Super Bowl supposedly contradict those from last year's, then that would be all the more reason not to include its disputed ranking among most-watched programs. Dsaun100 (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Your intransigence with regard to the facts, and most importantly to all the mainstream sources, is perplexing. In all seriousness, do you actually still not comprehend that the NFL's claim of it being the most-watched SB ever is based solely on the six minutes during the broadcast when viewership reached its peak number, and not on the #1 key metric of average viewership? Do you also still not understand what is being explained here? In case you haven't noticed, no one agrees with you here. Even your initial supporter no longer agrees you. What's most interesting about this situation is that you come on Wikipedia for the second time in two years and the very first edit you make is to remove three reliable sources from an article. Rowssusan (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The same could be said of you, so what's your point? Are you above the NFL now? What makes your opinion of how to interpret the ratings superior to that of the NFL? Their article clearly stated this was the most-watched program in U.S. history. Why do you care when I decided to log on Wikipedia? I'm sorry I'm not on this website 24/7, like you. Also, I came on Wikipedia to edit the notion that this was the third-most watched program in U.S. history, not merely remove content. You continue to distort the truth. I could just as easily say all you did was remove my edit, along with the given source. Your holier-than-thou attitude, not to mention your continued hypocrisy, is nauseating. I offered a compromise, and you refused. That says more about you. Dsaun100 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You are on the verge of trolling now. You said, "I came on Wikipedia to edit the notion that this was the third-most watched program in U.S. history, not merely remove content." Let's get the facts straight. What you actually did was remove content and the top-notch sources that verified that content. You are also purposely ignoring the fact that 99% of the stories by mainstream media about the ratings use the average rating number because it is the #1 standard by which TV ratings are determined. That's not an opinion; it's a fact. The 1% includes the NFL's release about itself. Even Nielsen's own report supports this. Read the headline: SUPER BOWL 50 DRAWS 111.9 MILLION TV VIEWERS". Do they even mention the peak number? No, of course not, because it's not a key metric. Why are you in such deep denial about the fact that Super Bowl 50's viewership was 111.9 million? Do you work for the the NFL or have someone close to you who works for them? Because your logic makes no sense. At first, I assumed you were acting in good faith. But your intransigence and refusal to acknowledge even the most basic, well-known facts, and the sources that support them, indicates otherwise. Rowssusan (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm on the verge of trolling? That's a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. There's a difference between editing content and removing it, which you continue to misunderstand. I edited the claim that this Super Bowl was the third-most watched program in U.S. history, when in fact, it was the most-watched program in U.S. history, according to the NFL itself, which got its ratings directly from Nielsen. Those are the facts, and your misrepresentation and outright lies do not change that. You're the one who is denial about this Super Bowl being the most-watched telecast in the history of U.S. television, which is backed by a reputable source. Again, I offered a compromise on the matter, and you keep wanting to push your own flawed agenda, along with making this personal. Grow up, and stop acting like a petulant child. Dsaun100 (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"There's a difference between editing content and removing it, which you continue to misunderstand." "Editing"? Is that what you call it when you completely remove content and all the sources that verify it, and replace it with different content and a different source? You must be trolling now because there's no other reasonable explanation for someone who absolutely refuses to acknowledge the obvious. Rowssusan (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you ever get tired of indulging in hypocrisy? Take a look in the mirror because everything you just said applies to you. Changing a piece of information -- in this case, stating that this was the most-watched program in U.S. history, instead of the third-most watched -- is editing. You need to grab a dictionary, and stop running in circles. Dsaun100 (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

"Take a look in the mirror because everything you just said applies to you"? What are you, six years old? When you removed the content and replaced it with yours, you failed to explain the distinction between the two different numbers. If you understood the difference, then it proves that you purposely deceived readers by removing the industry-standard average number. If you didn't understand, then you're an incompetent editor who refuses to acknowledges his mistakes. So either way, you were being disruptive. You obviously didn't care one bit about removing three high-quality sources that fully verified the original content. During the resolution process, you even made a text suggestion that, as you were told, completely failed the requirements of the option. You did that because of your never-ending intransigence and refusal to listen to what experienced editors repeatedly explain to you. That's precisely what you did with the administrator who was trying to educate you about what constitutes a reliable source. In any case, the other editors have of course set you straight about the obvious inferiority of your total to average. It's a shame it took all those people to educate you about it, and about the necessity of giving due weight, which we now know you clearly knew nothing about. In any case, my content proposal was supported by the others and is now in the article. Rowssusan (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

3O Response: A request for a third opinion was made. However, since there are four editors engaged in discussion in this section, I am declining the request for a third opinion. If extensive discussion here does not resolve the issues at play, please be aware that there exist other dispute resolution mechanisms on Wikipedia. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 23:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Wiae: Per WP:THIRDOPINION, "3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation." As is clear from the discussion, this situation mainly involves just two editors. Rowssusan (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to relist; it's entirely possible that another volunteer disagrees with me and thinks this particular request falls under the purview of 3O. /wiae /tlk 23:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Wiae: Thanks. Hopefully you'll reconsider because, as you see from the discussion, this is really a disagreement between just two editors. Rowssusan (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rowssusan, @Dsaun100: May I suggest that you both avoid making this discussion personal (WP:AVOIDYOU, WP:BATTLEGROUND). It seems there are two facts about the average and peak viewers, so it's just a matter of agreeing on how to present them while providing proper weight. To wrap this up, perhaps one of you can offer a proposal or two for the exact text to be included. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bagumba: As an unbiased party and very experienced editor, why don't you make a suggestion. It would be appreciated. And please address the fact that this entire dispute began with the other editor's removal of well-sourced content, rather than simply adding their own content. That's at the heart of this matter. It's shocking to me that an editor got away with removing information verified by top-level sources (and dozens of others that were not used). Thanks. Rowssusan (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I offered a compromise/proposal, but Rowssusan refused. I said that if he wanted to state that this was the third-most watched Super Bowl ever, in terms of average viewers, then that's fine. However, it should also be noted that this was the most-watched telecast in U.S. history, in terms of peak viewership, as stated by the NFL itself. That, to me, seems like a reasonable compromise, but again, Rowssusan refused. Dsaun100 (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Unproductive WP:BATTLEGROUND

Here you go again, Dsaun 100, ignoring what all the sources are clearly saying. It was not only the third most-watched Super Bowl, it was also the third most-watched telecast of any kind. Read the damn sources! Adweek - "According to Nielsen's fast national ratings, the Denver Broncos-Carolina Panthers game was watched by an average of 111.9 million viewers, which makes it the third most-watched Super Bowl—and third most-watched U.S. program—in history." [7] Variety - "CBS’ telecast of the Golden Super Bowl from the Golden State on Sunday has fallen short of last year’s record audience for the big game, but has become the third most-watched program in U.S. television history."[8] Adverstising Age - "According to Nielsen live-plus-same-day data, the Broncos-Panthers gag reel averaged 111.9 million viewers, making it the third most-watched U.S. TV broadcast in the history of the medium."[9] The Los Angeles Times - "The CBS telecast of Super Bowl 50 averaged 111.9 million viewers, a drop of 2% from last year but still the third most-watched TV program in history according to Nielsen."[10] Now stop repeating your nonsense that it wasn't the third most-watched telecast of all-time. Rowssusan (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC) And here YOU go again, Rowssusan, indulging in hypocrisy. You're ignoring what a prime, credible source (i.e. the NFL) is saying, concerning this Super Bowl being the most-watched program in U.S. history. You need to read that particular source again. This game can be played all day long. I've repeatedly stated that I've offered a compromise on the matter, and you keep running in circles. Dsaun100 (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC) This is a great example of your complete misunderstanding of reliable sources. The NFL.com report is clearly not a "prime, credible source" because it is reporting about it's own accomplishment. When an organization touts it's own successes, it is most certainly not neutral. So thank you for proving my point. All your talking about this issue is based on one biased source talking about itself. But that's not surprising coming from someone who's only made a few edits in four years, including this nonsense you spouted with a very experienced editor (and administrator) about reliable sourcing. So you've made just a few edits over all these years, yet two of them resulted in major debates because of your inability to admit when you're wrong. Rowssusan (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Actually, you've just demonstrated your lack of knowledge regarding credible sources, not to mention, narcissism. The NFL is a credible source, regardless of how you spin it. Also, there you go again concerning yourself with when I logged on to Wikipedia. Your obsession over that exudes how sad you really are. Again, I'm sorry I'm not on this website 24/7, like you. The fact have to resort to that shows you had no argument to begin with, thus, you start grasping at straws because you know your premise was flawed and that you were wrong from the beginning. Dsaun100 (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Dsaun100, no one is disputing that peak viewership was 167 million. The issue is that average viewership (111.9) is the #1 key metic, and that peak viewership is not. In other words, it's interesting, but it's not nearly as important as the average number. That is why the only source you have for the peak number is the NFL itself. Therefore, please provide links to other/neutral reliable sources that say it. I'm not doubting it at all. In fact, I believe it's probably true. But even if it is, the official ratings for any program uses the average number and never the peak number. Most importantly, nothing that you have said explains why the hell you removed well-sourced content. Rowssusan (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I agree with the previous Third Opinion denial. Just because most of the disagreement is between two editors doesn't mean that the other two should be ignored. I don't see them as having minimal participation, just less participation. Also, the discussion has gone on so long back-and-forth that I would have to ask for a concise summary of the question. However, I won't do that because I will delete the Third Opinion request. This dispute is better suited for the dispute resolution noticeboard. Try it. Alternatively, try a neutrally worded Request for Comments with a concise question to be answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Poll on viewership

The dispute over the viewership for the game is captured by this edit. One version quotes only the average viewership of 111.9 million and states that it's the third-most viewed SB ever, the other version uses the total viewership of 167 million and writes that it is the most viewed SB ever.

Most sources cite the average viewership, not the peak. NBCSports.com writes that the "key number is average audience" and calls it the "standard, industry-recognized measurement."[11] The total viewers is determined by the number of viewers who watched at least 6 minutes of the game. CNN Money writes: "However, this figure is more about showing the sheer scale of the game rather than used as an industry standard."[12]

Please !vote on your preference below.—Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: Notification of this discussion was left at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Super_Bowl_viewership.—Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: Notification of this discussion was left at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Marketing_&_Advertising#iVote_-_Super_Bowl_50_TV_ratings and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#iVote_-_Super_Bowl_50_TV_ratings.—Rowssusan (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Mention average viewership only

Mention total viewership only

Mention both the average and total, but make it clear that average is the industry standard

1. Provides the most information to the reader while adhering to WP:NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT.—Bagumba (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
2. In the body, mention average viewership only; but enter both average and total/peak in the infobox. This is the way it's done with other Super Bowl articles. Average viewership is the industry standard and has been the key metric for viewership of all programs for decades. As NBC Sports explained, "the total audience isn’t one of the standard metrics for determining TV ratings. The key number is average audience". Whenever you see the weekly or overnight Nielsen ratings for TV programs, they are always based on average viewership and never on total/peak viewership. The only "media" even reporting the peak/total number is the NFL itself because they obviously want to put the best possible spin on the numbers; viewership was actually down this year by 2%. There are literally thousands of Wikipedia articles about TV shows that include their ratings. They all use the average, and never the peak/total. In terms of Super Bowl 50, literally almost every mainstream source that published the ratings for this game reported the average viewership, and didn't say a word about the peak/total. And they say that this Super Bowl was not only the third most-watched Super Bowl, but also the third most-watched telecast of all-time. Examples (most which were removed from this article) include Adweek, Variety, Advertising Age, The Los Angeles Times, and Sports Illustrated. I'd also like to see a neutral reliable source that verfifies the 167-million peak/total number, because right now the only source we have is the NFL's own release about itself. Finally, even Nielsen itself didn't say a word about the peak/total number in their report about the Super Bowl 50 ratings! Rowssusan (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   The NBCSports.com and CNN Money sources mentioned above have the 167 million total also.—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   The NBC story was simply alluding to the NFL's claim about it so they could explain how misleading it was. After all, that was the sole purpose of the story, which is why it's titled "Super Bowl 50 audience gets embellished". But as I said, I'm not opposed to the total/peak number being in the infobox; just not in the body. I don't believe any Super Bowl article includes the total/peak in the body; only in the infobox. Rowssusan (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   Placing the total viewership in the infobox but not the body goes against the WP:IBX guideline, which suggests that an infobox should "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." It seems the body would be perfect to explain that total viewership is based off a minimum of six minutes of viewing, and emphasize that it is not an industry standard. If anything, total viewership—a minority viewpoint—should be removed from the infobox and only be in the body, but I'm OK if it's in both. It just shouldn't be in the infobox only.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   That's really good info. The thing that's so strange about this entire dispute is that TV ratings are synonymous with average viewership, and it's been that way for decades. Whenever we read or hear about ratings for any program, it refers to the average and never the total/peak. In the rare instances when total/peak is even mentioned, it's almost always as a supplement to the actual (average) rating. Rowssusan (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

3. This is the option I select. You can simply state something to the effect of, "Super Bowl 50 averaged 111.9 million viewers, making it the third-most watched Super Bowl ever (in terms of average viewers). It reached a peak of 167.0 million viewers, making it the most-watched telecast in U.S. history (in terms of total viewers)." I'm open to wording that differently, if you'd like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsaun100 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   That fails to meet the due weight requirement of this option because it does not make clear that average viewership is the industry standard and that total/peak is not a key metric. Nor does it show that the overwhelming number of reliable sources report only the average number. This is why the option includes the requirement to "make it clear that average is the industry standard". Rowssusan (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

   Agree with Rowssusan (though I wasn't expecting the poll to get into the exact verbiage yet)—Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

4. Agree with the others, we should use this option. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
5. This is so obviously the right choice that there was no need for a poll. All the real disagreement lies in how to implement this option - what words to use to describe the two statistics. One recurring point of dispute I see is one editor's claim that "most watched telecast in history" is the proper way to refer to a program that has the highest peak viewership in history. I say it isn't; readers would not understand it to mean that. Try this instead: "For six minutes, the telecast had more viewers than any other program at any moment in history (167 million)." By the way, sources are irrelevant to this question. Sources give us the facts, not the wording. The NFL is not an authority on the English language. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

   It wasn't a specific 6-minute span as your text suggests. It was viewers that watched at least 6 minutes at any point of the game.—Bagumba (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

   OK, thanks. That's not as colorful, but might be described by, "More viewers (167 million) watched for at least 6 minutes than did so for any other telecast in history." If I got that right, then I don't think it's what most readers would understand as "peak", so something explicit like this would be better than the naked term, "peak viewership". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk)

   I'm not an expert on ratings terminology, but I do think they are calling it "total" as opposed to "peak" viewers.—Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

6. I agree that this is the obvious solution. We should be stating the average viewership as with all television articles, but it makes sense to note somewhere in the body that the broadcast's peak viewership, though not the standard measurement of viewership, was the highest in history. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward on viewers

Unless there is an objection to wait for more input, I think we can call it WP:SNOW that both the average and total viewers should be mentioned, but it needs to be explicit that the total viewers is not the industry standard—average is. Maybe someone can be bold and add something to the article, and I trust that WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM or WP:BRD will be followed if any changes are needed. Alternatively, someone could propose the text to be added here and solicit input beforehand.—Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Great job Bagumba on facilitating this process. Below is my proposal for the wording, with sources included. I believe it fulfills the requirements of the option we have all agreed on, with regard to giving due weight and clear explanations about the differences between average vs. peak/total. For full context, I included that the average number made it the third most-watched Super Bowl and third most-watched program of any type because all the sources specifically indicate that it's third of any telecast, not just Super Bowls. To prevent confusion for readers, I think it's very important that we use the word peak rather than total because peak will be easily understood, while total will be much more ambiguous.

TEXT PROPOSAL: With an average TV audience of 111.9-million, the game was the third most-watched Super Bowl—and third most-watched U.S. program—in history, according to the Nielsen ratings.[13][14][15][16] It was also the most-watched program of all-time in terms of peak total audience, 167-million, which includes measures those who viewed at least six minutes of the broadcast.[17][18][19] Average viewership is the industry standard for determining television ratings, while peak audience is a supplemental metric.[20]

Hope this helps. Rowssusan (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think peak is technically correct. From CNN: "The peak of this year's game came from 8:30 to 9:00 p.m. ET when an average of 115.5 million people tuned in."[21] I don't cover ratings much; however, from what I gather, peak is measured by a specific time span. The total that CBS and NFL are using is based on anybody that watched 6 minutes or more at any time, not limited to a specific time e.g. 8:30 to 9:00 p.m. It seems the 167 million is based on "Nielsen's Fast Total Audience Estimates."[22] Either use a layman term like total, or just used the full technical term.—Bagumba (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I struck peak and replaced it with total. I think the wording makes clear what it is. Should I add it? Rowssusan (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a good, clear representation of what the consensus seemingly is. I personally think you should go ahead and add the wording, and mention this discussion in your edit summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, Adamstom. Thanks for your input. I added the content. Rowssusan (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC) 08:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic

I'm glad a compromise was reached, much like what I proposed, instead of all this childish rhetoric. Both can be mentioned. Dsaun100 (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Actually, as is made clear above, your proposal via your ivote was rejected because it completely failed the due weight requirement. And if you don't like "childish rhetoric" then don't use it. Rowssusan (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Box Score

Someone keeps making the box score into a reference. Every past year has it as a link, as has every season team article in the history of Wikipedia. Please stop the disruptive changing, against precedent. Jdavi333 (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The someone, Stesmo, left a warning on your page, so I'm not sure why you didn't just discuss it directly with them or notify them of this discussion. That is disruptive. WP:ELPOINTS states: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." Now I know a lot of American sports projects have external links to box scores and game recaps. An argument could be made that they are easily replaceable if the links go dead, there's lots of sports websites that have redundant information, so an exception to providing a full citation might be warranted. However, I don't know if that was the original rationale, or it's just the way it's always been done because it's simpler than a full blown citation. It's possible Stesmo was not aware of this local convention. However, an "outsider" that wants to see if the exception decided by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS has global support might want to start an WP:RFC Until that happens, it wasn't "disruptive" to honestly change WP:EL violations, but it is edit warring if the same changes are repeatedly made back and forth.—Bagumba (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)