Talk:NBC

United Plates of America

NBC recently ordered a culinary competition to be called "United Plates of America". The premise of the show is that would-be-restaurateurs compete against each other for the prize of launching a chain of restaurant with the judges being the investors. The same production company as Top Chef and Project Runway is creating the show, which will offer one of the biggest prizes in reality TV. I'd like to add this to the programming section under the schedule where it mentions upcoming shows. The source is Reuters. Should I add it? Rosestiles (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)rosestiles

If you've got a source, no reason not to, I'd say. oknazevad (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

revisionist history

Yikes, the main article doesn't even give a hint of there being much of a controversy in this Leno VS all other NBC Comedians debacle and the discussion is nearly empty. Are NBC sockpuppets cleaning house? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.205.253 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Future Shows Page?

Someone should create a page of pilots/future shows that will appear on NBC. I'm kinda too lazy...or at least pages for the shows.....thefutoncritic.com has a good list of upcoming shows for all networks. Here's the link: (http://www.thefutoncritic.com/devwatch.aspx?series=&network=nbc&daycode=&statuscode=1&genre=&studio=) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachattack002 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we got rid of those not too long ago, as many of them are pilots that may never air (not uncommon, actually), and therefore are not particularly notable.oknazevad (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

History of ownership

I think the article does not make clear who owned NBC between 1930 and 1986. Was it RCA? -- Seelefant (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. oknazevad (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias

I have included a well-referenced statement twice now about perceived bias on NBC- not an statement accusing it, but a sentence stating that a large group of people, including a study by UCLA, found bias on NBC. I am adding this statement for the third time- it is highly relevant, and deleting it to present a positive bias of NBC is strictly against Wikipedia's policies of conflict of interest and neutrality. Irishjpm153 (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(New comments go on the bottom of the page). I was the one who removed it previously and moved it now. My concerns were multiple, but I felt tht it's inclusion in the lead was a severe case of undue weight and recentism. Frankly, between the poor placement and the "sorely needed" (which indicates strong agreement with the criticism) in the edit summary, it seemed to me that the edit simply wasn't NPOV. As the article can not be said to have been lavishly praising of NBC before (it seemed pretty straightforward before), it actually serves to skew the article slightly.

And it really only applies to the news division, which has it's own article, so any inclusion of such criticism belongs at that article, making it's inclusion here unneccessay, in truth. oknazevad (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

slightly.

Not to mention of the three bias links, one is to NewsMax, one lists Brit Hume as 'centerist' and the other one deals specifically with Obama, not a generic 'liberal bias'. It would be like using Obermann as a statement about Fox News's impartiality when coupled with a report that says Fraken is a centerist and a statement from Beck about how great Palin is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.154.37 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, the addition was pertaining to perceived bias, not proven, and the citations reflected the fact that those on the right tend to find bias with it. Many of the criticisms of Fox news from the left are cited as perceived bias, because that is what they are and a proper article would mention them. I said the statement was sorely needed not because I agree with it but precisely because it had gone unmentioned for so long, and the placement was not poor, as other articles on news networks (again, see Fox) have statements about perceived bias at the beginning of the article. Having said that, Oknazevad is correct in stating it belongs on the page of the news division, so I apologize for placing it here and will move it to that article instead. Irishjpm153 (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture suggestion

Why the new 3D picture doesn't have the lowercase ("nbc") wording below it? Kiddie Techie (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The 2011 variant should be the logo. 68.37.41.158 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a non sequitor. I disagree with changing it; the 3D version is not the standard logo, it's a minor variant used for a few graphics packages. It's completely absent from nbc.com, for example. The image we have also omits the NBC text (which is what Kiddie Techie was really saying.) oknazevad (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what's on NBC.com. That's the logo used on television. 68.37.41.158 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not always; only some graphics. Its not the primary logo.oknazevad (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Nbcl2011.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nbcl2011.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)