Talk:NBC/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2

Requested move

NBCNational Broadcasting Company — There is no source that says NBC officially changed its name to just NBC, ALL THE TIME they refer to themselves as the National Broadcasting Company, they only sign their programs with their parent companies name NBC Universal, but that is not the same as NBC. When they refer to NBC professionally it is the National Broadcasting Company, they explain this on the 30 Rock Tour as well. ~ grahambrunk 20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore "NBC" is also an abbreviation for other things - for example "Nahr al Bared Camp" in Lebanon (Palestinian refugee Camp, Northern lebanon) - There should at least be a disambiguation page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.165.124 (talk) 08:37, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

No, per WP:UCN. —76.211.96.62 03:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Weird vandalism

I saw some vandalism here replacing the word peacock with penis, when I went to edit it I found the word peacock was there, yet the article still had penis. Editing and saving seemed to undo the vandalism. User:GarethNelson

"NBC Universal Television"??

Who calls the National Broadcasting Company "NBC Universal Television"? This is not the name that Americans know it as. If anything, NBC should redirect to the National Broadcasting Company article, like it USED TO, and make all these less-known NBC thingies into NBC (disambiguation). Mike H 05:28, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

A recent announcement that this logo would be used again suggests an "NBC Snake" remake may be used when the network would enter fully at the HDTV era.
When was this announced? I can't verify this on the Internet. Can someone provide a link to the announcement?
Whoever put that there is trying to cause a prank to all the people, because it is COMPLETELY FALSE. It would be major news if it was true and so far there is NO SOURCES ABOUT THIS AT ALL, that person who made that edit in this talk page is an idiot--Jimmysal 19:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

NBC Pictures

I wanted to cut up the logo montage to place individual logos with each description. However, there are ungodly gaps in the text, which look awful. I think a friend of mine was using Mozilla Firefox or something of the like, and he said it looked fine. IE doesn't make it look pretty. Can someone help? Mike H 05:20, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Page move

(from WP:RM - page not moved)

NBCNational Broadcasting Company

  • Please help me with move. National Broadcasting Company is the official name of NBC Universal's US broadcast subsidiary. Edwin 22:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Undecided. I'm inclined to agree with you, but I need better reasons to jump aboard. I don't see the need when the redirect as it currently is suffices...as is the case also with Columbia Broadcasting System redirecting to CBS, and British Broadcasting Corporation redirecting to BBC. The only one I've found, of the major American networks that breaks this mold is ABC which goes to a dsambig that lists American Broadcasting Company (FOX isn't an acronym, so they don't count). PBS and NPR redirect to the long form, but they're different anyway. Give me something more, and I'll change my vote, but I haven't been won over. —ExplorerCDT 07:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Explorer, why are PBS and NPR different?? You say "they're different" like the reason is totally obvious. I have no idea what reason you have in mind. 99,999 times out of 100,000, when someone says "PBS", they mean Public Broadcasting Service, same for NPR. I see no difference. Revolver 21:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The most likely reason, according to Bkonrad, is that the full name National Broadcasting Company is no longer official, but that Public Broadcasting Service still is. Georgia guy 23:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Disagree. Explorer up there gave some good reasons to leave it alone. SECProto 19:16, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • The name should be the official name, also NBC could refer to the 'National Bowling Congress' or the 'Newfoundland Barbering Commission', National Broadcasting Company is clear, and doesn't leave many other options as to its identity. Edwin 21:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I guess you could make NBC a disambiguation page, but I'd say about 99,999 people out of 100,000 will be looking for the National Broadcasting Company, not the Newfoundland Barbering Commission or the National Bowling Congress. But, I guess this is trying to be all-encompassing, so an admin can go ahead and change it, but i'm not changing my vote :P SECProto 03:40, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose - isn't the National Broadcasting Company likely to be by far the most likely intended article? There is an NBC (disambiguation) article so I would leave this where it is. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Abbreviation is overwhelmingly more common, and other expansions are nowhere near as widely known. [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 19:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Georgia Tech vs. who?

...someone at NBC in New York heard the WSB version of the notes during a networked broadcast of a Georgia Tech football game and asked permission to use it on the national network.'

Who was Georgia Tech's opponent? This line makes it seem like they were the only team playing. If we don't know who the opponent was, perhaps we should remove the mention of Georgia Tech? Beginning 03:43, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree.--Firsfron 01:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've replaced it with a more general "collegiate football" reference until we determine the opponent. Beginning 03:45, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
Looks good to me.--Firsfron 01:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You aren't going to find an opponent. The story is a myth.

College football games simply did not have the popularity to warrant a national network radio broadcast in 1927. While researching my own NBC chimes history page The NBC Chimes Museum I discovered that during the time period this intrusion of the WSB chimes over the NBC network is alleged to have happened, Georgia Tech was the owner of WSB's biggest competitor, station WGST. WGST was the exclusive home of Georgia Tech football and radio broadcasts from the time Georgia Tech took it over in 1923 until they sold the station in the 1980s. --Shoshani 03:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Affiliates in Intro

It owns and operates stations serving the Chicago; Philadelphia; Los Angeles; Miami; New York City; Washington, D.C.; San Jose; Dallas/Fort Worth; San Diego; Hartford, Connecticut; Raleigh; Columbus, Ohio; Birmingham, Alabama; and Providence, Rhode Island markets.

Is this really necessary, given the List of NBC affiliates article we already have? An incomplete list of affiliates really doesn't belong in the intro, in my humble opinion. I'll be bold for now, and remove it.

Danthemankhan 03:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

NBCi

The page NBCi redirects to NBC, but the article doesn't even mention the network's failed internet venture, NBCi. -T2X 06:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

logo section too long

The logo section takes up almost 30% of the article. This is way out of proportion to its importance. Why not a separate article? Revolver 21:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Done; at National Broadcasting Company logos. Georgia guy 18:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

ABC in lead?

Should ABC really be mentioned prominently in the lead of this article? -Scm83x 02:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

NBC News and the BBC?

I've never heard of any sort of agreement between NBC News and BBC News, as is mentioned in the NBC News section of this article. I think, but I'm far from certain (or authoritative), that the BBC actually teamed up with ABC News. (I've seen a BBC reporter on ABC's early-morning program, "World News Now.") Again, I'm far from certain and certainly not an authority on the subject. --Oddtoddnm 06:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing myself.. BBC News 24 (available on digital/cable tv in the UK) airs ABC's World News Tonight live on weekdays, and as far as I know there's no NBC-programming on any BBC channel (or vice versa). BBC News airs on PBS-stations in the US and on BBC World only.. --Pneumaman 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Television History

The television History of NBC is quite bad compared to CBS, ABC, and FOX. I don'y really know much about it, but maybe someone out there does?

Actually, you made an edit saying that only one new show is renewed, but actually there is like 5-6 new shows that actually got renewed by NBC. Also, when you said that the History of NBC is bad, that is not true, NBC had a sucessful period of #1 hits back in the 1980's and 1990's. For Example, Cheers, Seinfeld, and Friends were hits. And also, MAKE SURE YOU ADD THE SIGNATURE WHEN YOU ARE DONE ADDING COMMENTS ON THE TALK PAGE!!!--67.34.212.113 09:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Dont be so rude. Also, he was talking about the article, not NBC's actual history.Yet-another-user 08:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

More info on Television Section

I noticed there is a lot less information in this article about NBC-TV and a whole bowl of information about it's radio business because NBC has more information about it's television history and this article doesn't put in the extra details in there, so could anybody please expand the Television section and trim down the radio information, thanks--Jimmysal 19:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Add most-watched programs of the network per season since 2001-2002?

I recently added a table of the most-watched programs of the network of the 2001-2002 season. I meant to include the TV seasons following 2001-2002, up until the present. However, another Wiki user had deleted it shortly thereafter. My question to anyone here is should tables of the most-watched programs per season since 2001-2002 be included? I believe that such an addition is informative and an interesting read. Let me know what you think. -- Dechnique23 00:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

There is no reason why the studios for NBC need to be seperate they should be placed together by someone.--Chalutz 05:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Negative, The parent article is already plenty long; adding the elements you cite would make the article inordinately long and certainly unwieldy. --Mhking 05:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Mhking is right...there should be seperate articles for NBC's studios, just there are for CBS, ABC, and Fox. It's enough information to merit its own page.ShawnHill 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, as stated above, the NBC article is already too long and the lack of a separate article for the old NBC radio network has made this article overly cumbersome as it is. JGHowes talk - 01:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I restored the small piece about an incident of political censorship. Items like this may be discounted as insignificant or not meriting our attention, but is it really beneficial to pursue an article that reads more like a sales brochure? It seems quite relevant that the ad was rejected on the grounds that it was disparaging to the president of the United States. It seems to be relevant to many, even if the majority inside the USA who elected a president and support his policies might like to see such criticisms just disappear. 198.60.22.24 09:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't assume political actions behind every Wiki edit. As the source referenced states, NBC fully expected to work with the distributor to create an ad that would work better, but they chose instead to run screaming "conspiracy" to the press to drum up support. That does not imply a good faith effort on their part. It's thoroughly within a major TV network's right to reject an ad that's going to anger a large and passionate section of their viewing audience, not to mention damage the relationship they have with those in Washington that can help them report the news. ("Free Speech" unequivocally does NOT mean "Freedom to access to whatever media you choose, despite the wishes of the private media outlet in question.") Shall we go back and try to list every commercial ever rejected by NBC, or should we counter with all the claims from the right that NBC is an overwhelmingly liberal company (Katie Couric's "Today" days, Keith Olbermann)? No.

The fact remains that very few people know about this little dust-up, and fewer people care. (And it clearly hasn't had long-term detrimental effect on the career of the Chicks.) It's simply not noteworthy enough to be included on this article.

Oh, and no "sales brochure" on NBC would ever mention Supertrain. Lambertman 15:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are verfiable sources on this matter, then it's likely sufficiently noteworth for inclusion as well. If there aren't verifiable sources for the accusation of censorship that it may qualify as defamatory, and should not be included. Notability is not a requirement for inclusion of information in an article, verifiable sources are. i kan reed 19:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested 3rd Opinion

I think this is a small event in the history of NBC and does not belong in this article. The comment about how the commercial was accepted by CBS but not CW, furthers the argument that this is a statement notable to the documentary, not the network. While NBC's rejection of the ad was not a major event for the network, it was for the documentary and this paragraph would probably be useful if added to Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing. This appears to have already happened. Selket Talk 19:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The 1956 trade with Westinghouse

During 1955, NBC announced it would sell its radio and television combination in Cleveland, comprised of WTAM-AM-FM and WNBK television, to the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in exchange for Westinghouse's Philadelphia stations, KYW radio and WPTZ-TV. After the deal was approved in February 1956, NBC renamed the Philadelphia stations WRCV-AM-TV, while Westinghouse moved the KYW call letters to Cleveland.

However, the ink had barely dried on the deal when Westinghouse complained to the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Justice Department, claiming that NBC had extorted them into agreeing to the deal. It turned out that NBC had threatened to pull its television programming from both WPTZ-TV and WBZ-TV in Boston unless Westinghouse agreed to the swap.

Following a thorough investigation which lasted several years, the FCC and the Justice Department ordered the swap reversed without NBC realizing any profit on the deal. NBC regained control of the Cleveland stations on June 19, 1965, renaming them under the WKYC call letters. NBC sold WKYC-AM-FM in 1972 while holding onto WKYC-TV until 1991.

I removed the above text because it's dealing in heavy detail on a single market; in the grand scheme of things, it's not that important. Lambertman 19:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored this section because it is pertinent to NBC's history, and BTW, it focuses on two markets, NOT one. Rollosmokes 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see its long term effects on NBC. Fill me in? Lambertman 20:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Anybody else have any opinions? Lambertman 19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There would be a threat to ABC, NBC, FOX and MS-NBC, which were involved of getting rid of Imus.

Because that Mr. Imus (whoever he was?) was teriminated for his alleged racist comments against Rutgers University in Princeton, I am white, though.

Huh?? Cris Varengo 01:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1 | Archive 2

iTunes and Hulu.com

I'm rather surprised to see that the controversy over NBC removing its content from iTunes and its attempt to put forward Hulu.com as an alternative is not included here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.126.102 (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

shouldnt someone create an article on the nbc direct beta dowloading program or at least mention it???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.32.14 (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is Hulu if you want to write it into the article or add it to See also. Hulu is no longer in beta, by the way. -Colfer2 (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Slogans

Looks like due to the proposed deletion of NBC slogan pages, all the slogans should be merged into a single page. I've just merged a single slogan into this article and it's clear to me that it doesn't belong like this, and perhaps all slogans should be merged into a single NBC Slogans page instead. Thoughts? XSG 03:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Which logo?

Recently, the logo in the Infobox has been subject to multiple reversions between Image:NBC Stacked Logo Legal Identity.svg and Image:NBC logo.svg. According to User:Also We Brief, Image:NBC Stacked Logo Legal Identity.svg complies with NBC's stylebook and is the correct layout and color rendition. Per WP:LOGOS, "Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate".

Rather than continued edit warring, any dispute should be discussed here (or at the image talk page). Note also that Image:NBC logo.svg is currently proposed ifd JGHowes talk - 17:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The logo Image:NBC Stacked Logo Legal Identity.svg is from page 4 of the NBC Logo Legal Usage Guidelines. While the Image:NBC logo.svg is from a dodgy Russian website. So which one do you think is the better sourced one? --Also We Brief (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A new NBC logo has been uploaded from a more reputable source. --Tkgd2007 (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Library

No, Get Smart was a production of Talent Associates, Ltd.71.222.116.50 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NBC Chimes

The article currently states that the NBC chimes G-E-C did not stand for the General Electric Corporation, which "did not own NBC outright until 1986." I believe this is misleading. GE directly owned 50% of NBC, and was the majority owner of RCA which had a 30% ownership in NBC, until 1932, when they were forced to divest themselves of RCA and NBC by a U.S. government anti-trust suit. Therefore, GE was the majority owner of NBC at the time the chimes were originated.

If the chimes did not stand for GE Corporation, it's a pretty amazing coincidence. At any rate, it can not definitely be stated that they did not stand for GE. See <http://www.radioremembered.org/chimes.htm> for a discussion of the origin of the chimes. Many other similar sites exist. 71.191.196.68 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is an urban legend that doesn't want to die, there has been nothing found that would substantiate the claim the notes G-E-C were chosen because of NBC's association with the General Electric Company.

The article states: "NBC started to use the three notes in 1931" NBC first broadcast the three notes on the air November 29, 1929. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.135.225 (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Guam

Guam is a small country Guam got Usa Network like NBC TV.

Could you add Guam to your nbc Country list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.180.50 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Is there a source to verify this? Generally speaking, "Availability" refers to terrestrial over-the-air station affiliates broadcasting the network's lineup. Is there an actual NBC affiliate in Guam and, if so, what are the call letters so it can be verified? While it's possible to pick up a network feed by satellite with a 12 ft. antenna elsewhere, that should not be listed as such. Similarly, what is the basis for adding United Kingdom, Philippines, Australia? To the best of my knowledge (having been there), NBC has no affiliates in those countries. JGHowes talk - 05:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is an NBC affiliate in Guam, KUAM-TV. Guam is not a country, though, it's a U.S. territory. -- Gridlock Joe (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added Guam to the Asia-Pacific subsection with a wlink to KUAM-TV JGHowes talk - 02:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


NBC Direct

Why is there no mention of NBC direct from NBC.com on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Site Hacked

The Saturday Night Live video portion of NBC.com has been hacked and redirects to multiple shock sites. Just FYI... --Jack Zhang (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Olympics question

in light of the recent games is there anything that documents wheather NBC is the oficial broadcaster of the games for the U.S. in the form of a contract with the U.S.O.C. and I.O.C.? just a question. Thanks :) MKLPTR (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes they have to or else ABC, CBS, or ESPN would be broadcasting it. They Have a contract until the London 2012 games. Newsflash930 (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC) newsflash930

Original research

This edit feels like it is unbalanced original research. Though the text may be correct (I honestly don't know), it seems to be analysis. Without sources to verify the claims, it may need to be removed. Thoughts? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Green is Universal

160px|right All this week, NBC will be using a different logo. I would like to propose that we replace the current logo in the infobox in favor of NBC's Green Week logo. We did this last year also. Any thoughts? United Statesman (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

rotoworld redirect?

why is the rotoworld article redirected to this entry? rotoworld is a website about fantasy sports... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.76.28 (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

NBC Banking on Leno

It looks to me that NBC has dropped all hopes of producing any real TV shows and is banking on Jay Leno to keep them a float. If you look at their new line-up their is almost no real quality TV shows anymore. Our family already watches more cable than broascast tv due to the lack of quality shows.--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And this affects the article how? Wikipedia is not a forum. oknazevad (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the decisions that lead to doing so for one thing. Secondly not just NBC, but TV as a whole, the progression of TV show types over the years has been documented and observed. I am sorry if I have upset the thought police in any way.--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 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)


Are you kidding me? You’re cancelling the show "The Firm"? It is so much better than any other show on TV now! I can’t believe ya’ll are doing this. This is why I don’t get into shows sometimes because as soon as you get into something, they cut it off. This show would have done much better on ABC…..where they have the worst shows on TV yet. Why do you cut off all the good stuff??? And leave the crummy stuff alone??? Now we’ll never find out if the family is going to be okay from the mob….we’ll never find out if the advisory guy actually killed the girl or if it was a set up. So many questions left unanswered. The reason the rating were so bad is because they handled this show incorrectly, changing times, etc. Whoever made this decision is really lame. Signed KD & upset, USA

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

Image-x-generic.svg 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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


NBCNational Broadcasting Company – As this is the official name, and other United States television networks, are as the official longer name, such as Fox Broadcasting Company instead of Fox, American Broadcasting Company instead of ABC, ABC (TV network), or ABC (TV channel), The CW Television Network instead of The CW, CTV Television Network instead of CTV, Global Television Network instead of Global or Global (TV network), and many others, this new name would be the proper name. Tate Brandley Stockwell 01:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Most of those others are at longer, more formal names for disambiguation purposes. Fox, for example, points to the animal, while "ABC" is a common name, with at least three TV networks using the initialism. Also, disambiguation guideline always prefer using a title without parentheticals, hence the locations of CTV and Global. "NBC" has fewer potential conflicts, so using the initialism, which is the more common name by far, is suitable. CBS is in the same boat. oknazevad (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the first preference should be the most commonly used name over the official name. As Oknazevad said, the other U.S. networks are primarily titled that way for disambiguation purposes. In addition, the consensus in a previous move request was that this article should be an exception to the "avoid abbreviations" rule of WP:TITLEFORMAT – the network is almost exclusively known by its "NBC" abbreviation. IMO, a move should only be made if there is evidence and consensus that the U.S. network is no longer the primary topic of "NBC". Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Again like I warned you on that inexplicable edit last night on Kathy Cox, read the article. Except for the legal name that goes on checks and lawsuits and the opening of the Macy's Parade and Jimmy Fallon, NBC has effectively dropped most use of the National Broadcasting Company name except for keeping the copyrights up. Also, there's another factor; ABC articles are among the most annoying to edit because we have to use the full American Broadcasting Company name because of the many things that exist which have the ABC initials, and in that case at least, it's understandable. NBC is much easier to work with because only a few things share its initials, so the NBC initials should remain the primary name of the article. There is years and years of consensus behind this and the CBS name, and I'm not about to change my mind because of a name few have really used since 1975 beyond 'prestige' branding. Nate (chatter) 04:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment if you renamed it that way, shouldn't it be National Broadcasting Company (US), since there are other national broadcasters? 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    No, because there is no currently no other article here with the exact "National Broadcasting Company" name, and would instead be considered "over-precise" or "unnecessary disambiguation". Article titles should be concise as possible, and the context and where the subject is located should instead be specified in the first paragraph. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Extremely Strong Support: Titles of articles on NBC in a multitude of foreign Wikipedias refer to the network by its full, formal name; these include the Basque article, the Catalan article, the Dutch article, the French article, the Galician article, the Georgian article, the German article, the Portuguese article, the Spanish article, and the Swedish article. If NBC is referred to by its full name in titles of articles on so many foreign Wikipedias, I feel that the English-language version should absolutely, positively, unquestionably follow suit! --Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) 17:56, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
    The other Wikipedias have their own set of different rules and guidelines regarding article titles. Just because they each do things differently is irrelevant to the rules and guidelines here on the English Wikipedia – specifically our WP:COMMONAME rule that states, "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural" (emphasis added). Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    OK, OK! I'm changing my mind now! Given your concerns and the policies given in WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I'm changing my vote to a Strong Oppose. As the initialism "NBC" is more prevalent than the full name "National Broadcasting Company" (which was possibly retired from regular usage in the 1990s or 2000s), I guess that it would be prudent of me to also consider renaming the foreign-language articles accordingly, in order to reflect the current prevalence of the initialism as the network's most common name. -- Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) Monday, April 16, 2012, 21:43 UTC. —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC).
  • Oppose. The corporate name is "NBC Universal" or "NBC Universal, Inc."[2] The "NBC Television Network", "NBC Entertainment", and so forth are divisions of this corporation.[3] "National Broadcasting Company" was used as a formal name in the 1970s and 1980s, but it looks like it was dropped around 1990. Kauffner (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    Comment. Please make sure you know the difference between NBC and NBC Universal. Georgia guy (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    So who is the president of NBC? Kauffner (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose NBC is without a doubt the common name. Canuck89 (chat with me) 05:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • EXTREMELY STRONG OPPOSE per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, please see CNN or OTRS. --180.183.107.252 (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NBC doesn't give new shows enough of a chance to gain viewership.

Because there is no place in the article to vent this, I am putting it here. NBC cancelled "Crossing Jordan" after telling Entertainment Weekly it was such a great show they could put it anywhere in their schedule (although I personally think they were just giving producer Tim Kring a bigger chance to run with "Heroes"...and we saw what happened in that shows second season). Then they killed off "The Black Donnellys" and "Kidnapped" without really giving them much chance - even though their ratings were really not that bad. And my final complaint was cancelling the original "Law and Order" without letting Dick Wolf write a series finale. These events made me stop watching this network.

I get this rant is long past these events, but it made me turn off NBC, since I couldn't count on anything I started to get interested in to be there the following week. I still don't trust them, and will not start watching new shows on the network.

Thanks for letting me rant. I just got angry over the cancellations of what I thought were good shows with little resulution.

Cheers Triste Tierra (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it...

Why does the NBC website have pages for The A-Team and Charles in Charge, even though BOTH shows ended years ago?

50.15.207.11 (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

#NBCFAIL

I cannot believe that the whole 'Olympics 2012' NBC coverage isn't mentioned, rather odd. Twobells (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Owner NBCUniversal

NBCUniversal has never been more than a wrapper. At least since 2011, it is nonsense to add them and Comcast and GE as owners. It's one or the other. --91.10.58.209 (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Slogan source?

Why isn't there a source for the new slogan? AFAIK the slogan is "More Colorful".

Even if I google the slogan "Every day is full of color." there is nothing but a single YouTube video... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexcho (talkcontribs) 13:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Popular Culture Section

In the NBC and the NBC logos articles, can you add the "In popular culture" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariqmudallal (talkcontribs) 22:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversy/criticisms

Just curious as to why there isn't a section in the article for such items. They have made a blunder or 2 as have many companies, more recently the lack of coverage for the paralympic games where they have been told they may not be the broadcaster in future. I personally find these sections helpful and (although you probably shouldn't) it does give a perceived measure of the bias on the page ie some criticims = more likely to be balanced and trustworthy because it appears there isn't an employee 'cleaning up' the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.218.9 (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like no one has any objections. We should start with the Zimmerman trial, where NBC had to apologize for purposely editing the 911 call to make it seem like Zimmerman was a racist. Here is a source: http://www.tmz.com/2012/12/06/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-911-lawsuit/ --173.76.46.132 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Popular Culture Section

In the NBC and the NBC logos articles, can you add the "In popular culture" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariqmudallal (talkcontribs) 22:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversy/criticisms

Just curious as to why there isn't a section in the article for such items. They have made a blunder or 2 as have many companies, more recently the lack of coverage for the paralympic games where they have been told they may not be the broadcaster in future. I personally find these sections helpful and (although you probably shouldn't) it does give a perceived measure of the bias on the page ie some criticims = more likely to be balanced and trustworthy because it appears there isn't an employee 'cleaning up' the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.218.9 (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like no one has any objections. We should start with the Zimmerman trial, where NBC had to apologize for purposely editing the 911 call to make it seem like Zimmerman was a racist. Here is a source: http://www.tmz.com/2012/12/06/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-911-lawsuit/ --173.76.46.132 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)