Talk:Cartoon Network

Ready for a semi-prot?

Given the amount of vandalistic/misinformation based edits of, well, the last year or so does anyone (or just you, kind and dear reader) feel a short term semi-prot would be a good thing? I figure it's somewhat under control but if the predominant edits to an article are reverts then there is something of a problem. Didn't get the blitz of "CN SUCKS" and other crap like it which is good but the other stuff just seems to get in the way of keeping the article near readable. So, lock it down or not? treelo _radda 17:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a semi-prot. The material that's being added lately is mind-numbing. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to submit the request then I'd appreciate it, doubt I could say anything different than what I did for The Powerpuff Girls: "Ongoing anon vandalism, fairly popular with kids with time to burn". treelo _radda 20:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon Network logo

The Cartoon Network logo is no longer in black and white because they change the logo color to white since July, 2008 but it's still the same logo though, but in white. Ricky3374 (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, you said that. What you haven't said is why this fairly huge change should be implemented when the new logo has been dismissed as not a permanent feature. Here's what you're against, the logo which is on this and several other articles has been for some time and is still the corporate logo, a stylistic alternate doesn't count as a wholesale change to that logo. What you need to show in order to change consensus is how this logo you have is the new defacto logo for CN US. Just for fun, I went over to cartoonnetwork.com because if it's truly the new logo they'd use it there, right? Nope, still using the regular logo, no sign of the white logo anywhere. So again, prove that it is the new logo and you won't be reverted but right now you shouldn't because consensus and verifiable sourcing suggests otherwise. If you do decide to re-add the logo it can be taken as willful vandalism. treelo _radda 17:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If you point your mouse to the Cartoon Network logo, the colors change to white. Try doing doing that go to cartoonnetwork.com and try pointing your mouse to the Cartoon Network logo. It should change to white. Ricky3374 (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

But still just a stylistic alternate, for all intents and purposes the initial state of the logo applies a great deal more than what happens upon a rollover. Yes, the white logo is in use however to state that it's the actual replacement for the existing logo as you are is absurd as it'd have to change each season as and when they get a brand refresh which usually includes a new variant on the logo. If you have any reliable source like a press release rather than vague assumptions and guesswork then I'll accept it but for now I'm not convinced it even has a place in the article in any form. treelo _radda 18:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We aren't a TV Guide

A lot of things on the article makes it seem as if we were a TV Guide. Remember, please do not add specific times of when a block airs (instead, put night, morning, afternoon, etc.). This is a problem on the article that needs to be fixed. --Hadger 06:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Whilst an educational course in WP:NOT would be good there are two problems. One, people who add the times generally won't read the talkpage to take note of this and two, people who add the times think it's helpful, that's all the reasoning they require. Just gotta keep removing the times as they come as there's nothing else short of a hidden note that'll stop it, it's never the same person so you can't warn them and may as well warn everyone instead through the means of <!--. treelo _radda 10:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay! I will add a hidden comment to all the sections that tell about the cartoon network blocks. If you think it only belongs it the main section for it, then you can remove all the other hidden comments about time. --Hadger 01:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I just added the comment to the main section about blocks (and I only put it once). If you would like, you can add them to all the sections that contain information about a block. --Hadger 01:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Once will do, it's a policy so once at the top should be enough and I don't think adding page bulk through comments is a good idea. treelo _radda 01:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Programming block Logos.

(copied from my talkpage - treelo _radda 12:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

Why did you remove the programming logos? The [Adult Swin] logo is there for a long time, but thumbnails of other blocks shouldn't be added? I think all blocks should have logo images, and if you removed those images because of missing description, I fixed them before I added them. [[::User:Speeda psx|Speeda psx]] (talk · contribs) 11:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The description wasn't the issue, it was because they didn't add much to the article in terms of understanding it better and we're not a fansite. To address your concern regarding block logos, [adult swim] is a much more signifigant block than any other and it does have its own article whereas the others don't and if you give all of them a logo the article will become cluttered fast and unreadable. Also, there's the issue of non-free images and that's eight in total as it stands now, the Adult Swim logo is free use so don't point to it as the excuse for more images when it hasn't been required in the past and still isn't now. Don't want a nasty sprawl of garbage like the Nickeldoen articles have. treelo _radda 12:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanted to know what was the reason and I agree now. [[::User:Speeda psx|Speeda psx]] (talk · contribs) 12:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, it's nothing personal so you know. treelo _radda 14:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)