Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels

Important history notes about the page Note this page was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels. It was then userfied by request to User:IP 12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels and then moved here via user name change from User:IP XXXX to User:The "good guy". -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC) After further development and related AFD discussion, the page was then merged and redirected to AT&T U-verse#Television. This page history here at List of AT&T U-verse channels is required by the site license to be retained for attribution of the merge as well as for the history of the deletion and userfication discussion. (The prior notes have been edited.) 216.152.208.1 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought I should let you know, Investigation Discovery is not a family channel. It's a channel that deals with real life crime and forensics, about as un-kid friendly as you can get. Violet yoshi (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Improvements

I am untroubled by threats of blocking my IP based on my constructive edits, which stand on their own merits and are mostly corrections taken from the source already provided. After corrections from this source are completed, other sources should naturally be consulted. Please remember that supplying sourced data in lieu of unsourced errors is not vandalism and should not be reverted en masse.

I am restoring the corrected channels, packages, colors, callsigns, and other data to the article and keeping the other changes made by other editors in the interim. The corrections represent several hours of research. I also intend to complete the corrections from the original source and look for other similar AT&T channel guides for other cities. Further, there are any number of news stories about AT&T negotiations with various providers that indicate the varying status over time of the channel provisions, and this is a significant neglected aspect of this article. I am hopeful that this work can be completed over a timely process.

I will be happy to answer questions posed to this shared IP's talk page. Since I began editing through this IP I acknowledge it has let 3 nonconstructive edits through from another party, but I believe the IP's contributions taken as a whole are noncontroversial. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC) It appears I also have a potential conflict of interest as I have disclosed at "my" talk page. This should not affect any consensus judgment on the reverted edits themselves. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edits aren't anywhere near "corrections" and have been reverted as vandalism. You have been warned on numerous occasions for vandalism and if you are editing (except for "3 nonconstructive edits through from another party") you ackowledge that the multitude of vandalism warnings on your talk page were for vandalism you created. On your "Conflict of Interest", not only do you have a massive conflict of interest, but you are vandalizing the page of the company you work for. No matter though, your edits have been reported and you will soon be blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, you are misreading WP policy in multiple ways, as well as misreading the nature of IP contributions. The proper topic for this page is whether the corrections improve the page, which I can demonstrate later. IP 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC) I have located the nonanonymous user's concern, namely, that I was restoring 'titles of networks like "SciFi Channel" (now just "Syfy") and "Fox Reality Channel" (no longer on the air)'. It maybe true that I restored outdated information among the many corrections and improvements, but WP policy is that the datedness should be proved from an additional source. Until that happens, it is appropriate to continue conforming the article to the first source at hand, with no prejudice against corrections made by consultation of other sources, while it is still inappropriate to revert a large set of improvements over two quibbles. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears the nonanonymous editor is continuing the policy of reverting a large pile of helpful changes because of one or two unsourced disagreements with the primary article source. This is not a good idea for the nonanon. I will return to restore the sourced information (recognizing the possibility of a historical section for this article later) and to make additional improvements. Correcting unsourced info from a valid source, even a dated source, is not vandalism, but supplying unsourced info could be construed as harmful to the encyclopedia if the nonanon's logic is followed. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't just two "quibbles", it is a whole swath of them. Nothing in your "helpful changes" or "corrections" is correcting or "helpfully" changing anything. Knowingly and blantantly removing current information and replacing it with information from May of 2007 is vandalism. In case you are in the dark on some things:

• "Fox Reality Channel" is no longer on the air, it was replaced by "National Geographic Wild" (otherwise known as "Nat Geo Wild").
• "SciFi Channel" is now simply called "Syfy".
• "Spike TV" is simply called "Spike".
• "Sleuth" is now called "Cloo" (pronounced "Clue").
• "Court TV" has been "truTV" for a couple years now.
• "SuperStation WGN" has been "WGN America" for at least 3 years now.
• "AZN Television" has been defunct for at least 5 years now (it wasn't replaced or renamed with anything).
• "MSNBC" is stylized as "msnbc".
• "Discovery Times" has been "Investigation Discovery" (after being something else before that) for at least 3 years now.
• "Toon Disney" was renamed "Disney XD" about 2 years ago.
• "Noggin" and "The-N" were renamed "NickJr" and "TeenNick" respectively about a year and half ago.
• "Discovery Kids" became "The Hub" at the beginning of 2012.
• "WE: Women's Entertainment" is now called simply "We TV".
• "Fine Living" is now the "Cooking Channel".
• "Discovery Home" is now "Destination America" (it was "Planet Green" in between).
• "Fit TV" is now "Discovery Fit & Health" (the channel for "Fit TV" is now "OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network").
• "MTV Tr3s" is simply "Tr3s".
• "BET J" has been "Centric" since 2011.
• "Fox Deportes" is spanish for "Fox Sports"...and was renamed recently.
• "TV Games Network" is now simply "TVG Network".
• "YES Network" has been called simply "YES" for awhile now.
• All the regional Fox Sports channels are simply "FSN <region>".
• "Turner Classic Movies" called simply "TCM" now.
• "Discovery HD Theater" was renamed "Velocity" this year.
• "HDNet" was renamed "AXS TV" back in August.
• "MGM HD" was never called "MHD".

What you are doing, reverting back to 2007 information, is repeatedly adding inaccurate and incorrect after being told it is inaccurate and incorrect and that is considered vandalism. Knowingly doing makes it clear you are vandalizing. You have been issued many warnings for vandalizing articles on your talk page, follow them. Any further vandalism to List of AT&T U-verse channels or any other article will result in a block. This is your final warning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What is your source for all that excellent information?

I have no doubt you are correct as to the data, but not as to Wikipedia policy, which requires sources for your assertions. It is eminently proper to work from sourced data as I did even if historical. I see now that the source has a code "05/07" in the corner but this is not necessarily a date and even if so does not disqualify the source from being used historically. You yourself are giving a historical review by indicating dates and series of changes, and these changes themselves are valid content for this article (and in fact are the primary subject of the untapped 3rd-party sources), not just whatever AT&T is playing today. Further, until today I thought that the 2012-09-01 date was referred to the Detroit source, since it was the only date and the only source, so I thought I was supplying updated information. I am making responsible edits accordingly and will also edit as per your detailed notes above. Please work together with the existing and any new sources and with the pool of editors you have at the moment. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Those you indicate are dated have now been tagged or otherwise corrected; they may be good in a historical presentation. A couple of your objections were not to changes I'd made. Stylistic name changes should be sourced (Spike TV, MSNBC, MTV Tr3s, MHD). The-N, what is? 12.153.112.21 (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

My source? The pages themselves! We don't do historical information here, we keep things current. Obviously you don't understand what we do here at Wikipedia, so you need to stop editing and start learning. You are the only user working against the users here. Please don't try to pass yourself off as the "good guy" in this situation when you are clearly not. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What pages please? WP pages are not sources. The ATT pages listed appear to be all generic or else zip-code-based. The article is not suitable if readers ask repeatedly for sources and are directed only to "the pages themselves". Please refresh yourself on verifiability. Also, WP is all about historical info of all kinds if it's reported by reliable sources. I have no problem continuing to work with you until you appear to be recognizing "what we do here at Wikipedia" as reflected by policy, but we do need to see those sources in the article. Judgments about "good guy"s are appropriately made by 3rd-party volunteers at appropriate boards. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional changes

I appreciate the other editors who have interacted with my review of the Detroit source. I am continuing to note it as historical for now in lieu of better information. My notes:

• In the absence of a "U-basic" package in a current search of att.com (except for "U-basic Latino") I think we'll need to use U-family for now, as per source, until additional sources can be brought.
• Is there any difference between Yahoo! Games and Games Channel (92 listed twice)?
• I am restoring the footnotes as they are the only documented part of this article. Where they have been objected to I am adding tags.
• I really don't think we need to be arguing over stylings like caps. I'm going with the source, and if other sources disagree we can note both.
• I'm going to make the edits necessary to interact with the most recent changes as well as preserve the source's content. Any additional notes will be posted. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Current TV is no longer available in the package I have. I haven't made a change since I haven't found an official announcement regarding that. ~NotWillRiker

Query to Neutralhomer

Your last revert regards my edits as vandalism. Can you point to specific vandalism in that edit? I have not removed your stations or inserted false or misleading data. I don't believe that your argument that "historical data is rejected" will hold up. I believe you are misunderstanding the definition of vandalism (as well as of socking) and I would rather interact with you. Thank you. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, being that you continue to add inaccurate information from 2007, yeah, that is all vandalism. You have admitted you are aware the information is old, but you have not shown any effort to find 2012 references. You just revert to admittedly old information you know is wrong. You aren't showing the "good faith" you claim to be showing. So, find a reference from 2012, would ya? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. It is not inaccurate that the information was true when the source was printed (if that is 2007). It is not vandalism because all your "current" channels are still listed, but with requests for additional sources as per WP:V. The burden of supporting "your" data is on you, not me. The Detroit page is not "my" source either, it's the source I found in the article. The reason I haven't had time to find additional sources yet (as I have expressed intent to) is that I have to keep accommodating your objections to the historical data appearing in this article; and yet most of the 3rd-party sources (news articles) are about historical changes not the current lineup. It is actually you who are reverting; my edits each build on prior work. In fact, you have reverted two other editors along with me, while I am the one retaining their data. However, I'll make you a deal: if you choose to decline to revert the accurate inclusion of the older data, I will happily have time to look for 2012 sources next time I'm on the article (so you won't have to meet your own burden). How's that? 12.153.112.21 (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The goal is a good article, not a good fight. This is just an amateur encyclopaedia -- a nice, useful, mostly harmless project not worth getting overly worked up about.

I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels asking for help. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

@Anon: Well, how about finding a new source. You want this data on there, the burden is squarely on you not me. You have to show that the information are you trying to add is worth adding, is encyclopedic, meets our rules. You haven't. Also, we don't make "deals" here so you can have your way. It really is a "follow the rules and life is good, don't follow the rules and life is bad" kinda place. I would follow what A. B. has posted on your talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The burden is on the inserter of data. You have been defending unsourced data. I have been inserting data based on a static source and have met the burden of the data that I "want" on there (proving that it appears in a 3rd-party reliable source, which is the ordinary burden). I have also stated that, based on my source review, historical data is encyclopedic = is worth adding = meets our rules. Now, due to your or others' work, there are now four "sources" in the article, three are dynamic and one is 2011, so your call for 2012 sources is actually unheeded. A dynamic source is unsuitable for WP because it is subject to change at any moment and thus fails verifiability as a reader is potentially unable to verify the data in the source, also it fails datedness because syncing with the source must be done constantly. I will be happy to update from the 2011 source if you give me permission. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have now located a static 2012 source, which no other editor has been able to do. I will be inserting it in the userfied draft later, which I invite all users to, currently at User talk:IP 12.153.112.21. Since the nonanonymous user has been silent about permission to update from more recent static sources, I will try a few tentative edits here for comparison purposes, using the 2011 source, as this page has potential to disappear soon anyway. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Path forward

As you can see my latest changes to this article are minor and performed for synchronizing the various lists involved. I trust we can now recognize that this kind of change is not vandalism (for one reason, it does not change any of the stations or positions and only makes the most minor and obvious of corrections). The remaining changes to be done fall in the following categories.

• add footnotes
• change (west) to - West per sources
• change U-basic to U-family per sources
• shorten "U200 Latino" to "Latino" and "ESPN *" to "ESPN"
• change to sourced channel names (1, 37, 91, 97, 99, 134-5, 184, 197, 201, 203, 222, 227, 256, 265, 266, 276, 301, 314-6, 325-6, 340, 372-3, 380, 400, 422, 450, 454, 465, 500, 502, 521, 525, 529, 560, 562, 564, 567, 578, 580, 601, 640, 650, 670, 672, Fox Sports/FSN, 767, 790, 800, 802-3, 883-5, 1490, 1492, 1505, 3065, 3605, 3631-2, 3638, 3662, 3664, 3704, 3732, 3882, 5103)
• add or change (84>82, 85>83) to sourced channel numbers
• change to sourced channel callsigns (197, 256, 315-6, 465, 521, 655, 1492)
• add or change to sourced packages
• move International package languages to comments
• add commented-in channels
• delete duplicates
• request citations for questionable data

Discussion of these changes can be continued here or at the userfied version; but if nobody userfies the current version and it is deleted, the changes will be moot because the only userfied version already has these changes made. I trust this breaks down the changes well enough that they can be looked at and discussed now. As I said, I do have access to the most current static source (2012) and will be adjusting from that source as well. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer has once again reverted good-faith edits that attempt to make only minor changes (such as capitalization, whitespace, commenting, and obviously incorrect numbers). I have asked above for recognition that such changes are not vandalism and have by this reversion been refused. Neutralhomer has proposed the issue be taken to ANI. As the article and history is ripe for userfication to Neutralhomer anyway, I see no alternative to concluding that talk-page discussion has failed and dispute resolution is indeed appropriate. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Being that your edits were, yet again, going back to 2007 information (even though that reference has been removed for 2012 information)...yes, you were reverted. Again! I, personally, have had enough of your games, your "good-faith" editing, so to put a stop to it, I will be calling your place of work later on today and will make sure your internet privileges are revoked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That is not a useful approach for you and will not affect me. I have inserted whitespace and some commented text. Please do not make your case worse by reverting again. Wikipedia was not written to cover the year 2012 only. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Dude, your cocky attitude isn't impressing me. You aren't the "good guy" in this, you are a vandal who is playing on the internet on company time. I spoke with a supervisor there and they are looking into the matter, so I would get off the internet and get back to work while you still have a job.

As for your "whitespace and some commented text only", that's bullshit and you know it. You reentered the exact same inaccurate and incorrect information from 2007 and against the new 2012 references. You have been reported and you will be blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we are now at the place where we can consider the relevant questions: (1) This is not vandalism; (2) Commented text for discussion, which does not affect the external appearance, is not vandalism; (3) The content dispute can be localized to my list above. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

For reference, Neutralhomer will steer clear of this page and has preemptively removed it from his watchlist. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing of article

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels:

• Clarification: Would like to note that the List of AT&T U-verse channels page is no longer unsourced ans I took four seperate sources from three seperate sites (including AT&T itself) to source it. You can find them at the top of the page. I though I had removed the "unsourced" template at the top, but oh well. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

End copy --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Compromise to AfD

As a compromise position to deletion of the article, would it be proper to create "Category:AT&T U-verse channels", and populate each channel accordingly, then delete this article? --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Crossposted to AfD article --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Next path forward

Neutralhomer has been indeffed in my absence. It appears that consensus favors the view that my changes are not vandalism and can be reinstated. Due to my admitted COI, I want to still proceed slowly with new information and not ruffle any more feathers. I will start by swapping back in my current preferred version, which afaik also includes all the unsourced 2012 data Neutralhomer was favoring (but tagged as unsourced where fitting) and all interim edits from other editors. The next step is to take my static 2012 source and update the article again. It is probable that supplemental sources can be used to verify (or on occasion correct) all Neutralhomer's content.

To resolve AFD/MFD concerns, we would next add significant prose here and at AT&T U-verse indicating the historic details of channel lineups and changes and significant contract histories. It is also my belief that the list should become one sortable table, which would significantly improve the TOC as well. Eventually the article can be submitted I guess to AFC. Please post any additional questions here. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What it really appears is that the consensus is that something MAJOR must be adjusted in order for this to be a viable article. Your claimed "preferred version" is still not anything different enough to not miserably fail NOTDIR. What you need to suggest for a next path forward what major changes are in store.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have an idea. How about removing the color coding for "Channel Types", the "Channel ID", and the "Minimum Package" from the table, that way it doesn't look like a channel directory, but instead looks like a list of channels that list what networks are on those channels and has notes. Also note you should follow WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists when redoing the formatting. Powergate92Talk 06:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

the color coding has fuck all to do with it being a directory and removing of color coding will not in any way address that fact. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup - "a list of channels that list what networks are on those channels" is a directory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please be patient. The "current preferred version" (the one in history) was the preference prior to resolution of differences with Neutralhomer (which I am treating as decided by community consensus). The ultimate version this article could become is several levels removed. I have indicated that sources permit something MAJOR to be adjusted and that can happen over time. I would like anyone with objections to the article to put tags in it with specific objections that can be addressed or discussed. Improvements are always welcome too, this is not a one-person operation. Thank you. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it may take time to edit a complicated chart, but can you verbalize what your final vision is going to be so that we have some confidence that what you are working towards does indeed have a chance of being something that does not violate NOTDIR? If you can verbalize something that is clearly NOT a directory, then you have a chance of changing opinions at the MfD. If your vision is "this without colors", then you are really wasting your time. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean just remove the color coding. Maybe I didn't word that right, but what I mean is to remove the "Channel Types" which includes the color coding, remove the "Channel ID", and remove the "Minimum Package" from the table. After that, all that would be left in table would be list of channels, what networks are on those channels, and notes about those channel. If you still thinks that's a channel directory, how about removing channel numbers as well, making it just a list of networks carried by AT&T U-verse? If you still think it's a directory at that point, than you minus well call List of social networking websites a directory as well. Powergate92Talk 22:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

what encyclopedic purpose would such serve? is there any third party coverage?-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom has found my precis insufficient. I can only reply that my plans can only be documented to the degree that I have time to link and demonstrate the sources that would flesh out the article in compliance with policy, and, when that time is diverted to dealing with IP editing issues as well as the static 2012 updates that the article needs and that users have requested, it becomes harder to document those plans, not easier. But patience heals all things. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing formats

Changing format no longer matters; such edit is an insubstantial improvement from the main article. Even this doesn't erase the G4 criteria. --George Ho (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks George. Yes, it would be foolish to think that merely changing color would pass a G4 argument. On the contrary, you may not be aware of a large number of other changes to the article already made that distinguish it from the version discussed. These are ongoing and the article will be presented when there is reasonable hope of a consensus favoring restoration. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, further edits you have done do not make a substantial difference to me, no matter how you have done it. Look at WP:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination); even deletionists, like me, consider them directories and a waste of space to Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) resulted as "delete". I'm afraid attempts to archive them are waste of time, pointless, and energy-consuming. Consider giving up this draft page because more others will be deleted in no time. --George Ho (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

George, turn off the Twinkle please, we've had enough reversions on this page of good-faith edits termed as vandalism (such as the two sections below) that we don't need to start that again. If you are interested in my losing faith in my edits your best method is to ignore me rather than to tell me what you believe and I don't, with no attempt at persuasion or consensus-building. Thank you. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (your reason here) --IAmCoolForever2023 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... (your reason here) --IAmCoolForever2023 (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

In related news: Anyone who may be watching may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky

In related news: Anyone who may be watching may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channels on Sky -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)