Talk:Doubt (American TV series)

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Number of produced episodes[edit]

Robberey1705 has updated the number of produced episodes to 13 based on an edit summary claiming that CBS as confirmed they were all produced, like Training Day. The produced episode total for Training Day comes from a press release discussing the handling of Bill Paxton's death, and makes no mention of Doubt; moreover, I can find no source indicating the number of episodes actually produced (there are press releases for three more, currently sourced to the highly unreliable SpoilerTV, but likely available from CBS or the reliable Futon Critic.) Beyond that, nothing. I've reduced the number to the 5 sourced, with three unaired, where it should stay until and unless Robberey or another editor can supply a reliable source that all 13 planned episodes are in the can. --Drmargi (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2017)

13 produced until Decembet 2016, say not only Variety[1], also someone I know on CBS Distribution. Copy the link if it doesnt work here.

--Robberey1705 (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please link your source so it can be read by other editors; making the link work is your responsibility. Someone you know at CBS is not a source at all, much less a verifiable one. Please familiarize yourself with policy, including no personal attack and assume good faith, given you've done neither. Moreover, once your edit is reverted, the article stays at status quo, that is the version before you added your edit, until you gain consensus for inclusion of your content. You have been reverted three times by two editors. The burden to gain consensus is entirely yours. --Drmargi (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

links work badly if you have to edit your stuff on a telephone. so here we go for a last time: four sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]. 13 episodes have been made. Period. --Robberey1705 (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who gains consensus? You? Who's not even an admin? The content comes back in within tnext 24h. Read the sources for yourself. Or try to prove a over hundered years old magazine like Variety wrong. Guess, admins llike to here that. And that will be reported.--Robberey1705 (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The responsibility for gaining consensus is with the editor who wants to add content, meaning you. If you don't know basic policy like that, you really need to read it.

Moreover, you really need to re-think your approach to having an edit challenged. It's a normal part of editing at enWP (BTW, English is a proper noun and is capitalized), and you should expect it to happen routinely. This tendency of yours to come out angry and insulting, making personal attacks, making threats and abusing the term vandal has to stop. It's a very commonplace thing for an editor to remove an unsourced edit and request a source, and it's not personal, no one is going to take your word for anything just because you claim to have some attachment to the industry. All you had to do was provide one, properly linked, and comment on the talk page, and we're done. Instead, you edit warred yet again, accused me of being a stalker (which is utter nonsense given the number of TV articles I edit), made a threat to "report" something or another and falsely claimed in an edit summary that I was trying to prove Variety wrong when I did nothing of the sort. You're heading for a long block in short order if you keep it up like this. --Drmargi (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings table[edit]

As an opponent of ratings tables, most certainly neglected ones, I am giving editors the opportunity to fill out Doubt's until series end on August 22, 2017. At such time, if nothing substantial is added, I will remove it. Viewership alone in the episode table is sufficient enough to document its downward spiral and demise. — Wylie pedia 02:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt ends on August 12th, 2017, not on August 22nd, 2017. 23:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Tim Correll (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]