Talk:National Geographic Channel

Fox Crime

Does Fox Crime belong in here? RocketMaster 10:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Focus?

This article has a lack of focus. It says that it is about the United States version of the National Geographic Channel, but it then includes other versions of the National Geographic Channel, as well as including spin-off channels that haven't been launched in the United States. 151.198.24.170 14:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to "National Geographic Channel (US)"?

It would seem to make more sense to have a United States specific article at "National Geographic Channel (US)" rather than "National Geographic Channel". If this is agreed upon, then I suggest that the United Kingdom version be placed at "National Geographic Channel" or to turn "National Geographic Channel" into a disambiguation page. Further logic behind this supported move is that other versions of National Geographic Channel existed before the United States version of the channel. 151.198.24.170 14:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This channel is very US centric and deserves a separate article. Even the structure of Nat Geo itself is split into separate countries, offering different additional services as you said. --Smacca 17:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It might have been very US centric but now the page looks awful. Its poorly done. It looks much better when each country has its own page (it was much cleaner when it was just the US version). If your going to list all of those channel numbers, do so in a seperate page or make that sidebar smaller, as well as the logos. The sidebar just doesnt look good being that big and leaves a big blank spot in the article. The logos are also out of order and It appears that this isnt the only channel (I noticed Discovery Channel is the same way) whose wikipedia format has changed for the worse.Dvferret (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is still titled as the US Nat Geo, so why do we still have worldwide channel listings? Dvferret (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Nat Geo UK launched before Nat Geo US, I suggest this article be moved to National Geographic Channel (US) and Nat Geo UK be moved to National Geographic Channel. Thanks TheProf | Talk 13:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, maybe even better, make this article a universal article about Nat Geo, and give Nat Geo US its own article. TheProf | Talk 13:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fix errors?

It would help to move to National Geographic Channel (US), there are many errors on this site as it is. I know the details well and am happy to help update.

Go right ahead and fix the errors. Dvferret (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up

I have put up the Cleanup Notice because of the conflicting focus of the article and in hopes that this page will eventually be fixed and brought back up to par. Dvferret (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that National Geographic Channel HD should be moved into this article since its a direct simulcast of it.TomCat4680 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no objections I did it myself.TomCat4680 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

National Geographic and Gun Owners of America

I guess there is an edit war over adding a Gun Owners of America(GOA) criticism section in the National Geographic Channel article.The criticism is about the airing of "Guns in America" which is part of "National Geographic Explorer" series(http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explorer/3825/Overview). According to GOA in its statement(http://gunowners.org/a121708.htm), it feels the episode was biased and sided with the Brady Campaign.This incident was received mainly (in my Opinion) by pro-gun rights blogs and website, and there is no Reuters or AP article, however there is an Opposing Views page:(http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/news-national-geographic-gun-show-draws-heavy-fire-from-critics). One wikipedia editor cite that the criticism is an "irrelevant complaint that has no means to stick out above anything else. issue with production company, not channel" and another one thinks "insignifigant in terms of the channel as a whole". Do you think the criticism deserves to stay there or should it be shifted to the National Geographic Explorer article or should it not stay at all. here is the edit: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Geographic_Channel&diff=277833492&oldid=277320749)64.255.180.34 (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Channel claims earth to sun within 8s by radiowave

Since 2009-07-21 the channel announces in the trailer for "space week" that a radio-wave from the earth can reach the sun within 8 seconds. This is wrong, and even high-school students are taught this fact.

As this doesn't seems enough, the channel tries to cover it up from these addresses:

090722 66.227.140.40 - Charter Communications, Bay City, MI, USA

090722 198.103.195.30 - GTIS, Ottawa, ON, Canada

090723 70.143.72.129 - bras23.pltnca011120061127, Plano, TX, USA

In the last "edit", even competitors may not be mentioned. Electron9 (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this is even notable. 112.200.130.182 (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Update Info

The number of countries and languages must be outdated. I have information (but no quotes) of 35 languages as of 2009, so the number of countries may have changed as well. Calfaro (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant/misleading Subject Matter

There are a number of regular documentaries on the channel surrounding UFOs and paranormal like themes. It seems to me that these shows exist simpley to gain viewers as they have very little scientific relevance. The shows are often based on a premise which is quite obviously untrue, one such example was on the recent documentary on the Nazca lines. The running question throughout the show was whether these were made by aliens and at one point the question is asked "were humans once used as slaves by an alien race?". This dumbed down kind of attitude is recurrent in many of the documentaries, irrelevant questions whose answers are quite obviously "no". Would it be worth mentioning this kind of attitude and subject matter in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.3.74 (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Religious Proselytizing In Disguise

I watched a documentary on 12k year old ruins. With no evidence the narrator, "Dr" Jeff Rose stayed focused on the same point. Religion religion religion religious, religion was the reason people started farming, religion caused them to build the community hall..religion religion religion religion. NO! There was zero evidence, it was purely the bias of the analysts and narrators of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.246.89 (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and dont forget to mention Jesus Christ five times throughout the program, seeing as how it focuses on a civilization that took place 10 thousand years prior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.246.89 (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Fox ownership math

There is a bit of problem with the ownership % values. On the sidebar it says Fox Cable Networks owns 67% and Fox Entertainment Group owns 50%, but 67% + 50% = 117%. Tweisbach (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That's right. Whovever added that didn't know simple math! But I'd recommend you'd remove the percentages, and leave only the owners. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Wanna talk?} _{See my} efforts? 19:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Minority partner?

Why doesn't the infobox mention News Corp's minority partner in the NGC, the Society itself? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) C 22:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)