Talk:National Geographic (American TV channel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tolikara,Papua,Indonesia

Focus?[edit]

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)[reply]

Move to "National Geographic Channel (US)"?[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Fix errors?[edit]

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)[reply]

Clean Up[edit]

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)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

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

National Geographic and Gun Owners of America[edit]

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)[reply]

Update Info[edit]

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)[reply]

Irrelevant/misleading Subject Matter[edit]

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)[reply]

Fox ownership math[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Minority partner?[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move 10 November 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus I don't see a clear consensus, or even much discussion for or against a clear move title. (non-admin closure) -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


National Geographic (U.S. TV channel) → ? – The TV channel article is just misnamed, being over-disambiguated. It's also not really a "channel"; this term has been deprecated in this context at WP:NC-BC. "Network" is probably the right term, but there could be debate about that. There is no non-US channel/network about which we have an article, from which to disambiguate the current article, so the "U.S." in there is unnecessary and thus the present title fails WP:CONCISE. There are several, at National Geographic Channel (disambiguation); the US one was listed at [[National Geographic (disambiguation) and the rest were not. There are NatGeo cable TV offerings outside the US, but we hardly need separate articles on them; I submit that they'd be covered as sections in this article. So, that might affect how we name this. "National Geographic (television)"? I don't like DABs like that, because there is no brand of TV by that name; an attempt at disambiguation that is ambiguous is a failure.

Some might argue that the common but now apparently former proper name National Geographic Channel (despite being a misnomer according to one view) is potentially viable. But not long-term. If you take pains to eliminate obvious marketing and false positives, "on National Geographic" and "on [the] National Geographic Channel" are almost tied in news usage [1][2]); however, the frequency of the longer name will decline over time as sources catch up to the name change, so we'd just have to move it again later.

PS: The same rationale applies to a future article(s) on NatGeo web content: they have various subsites, and use some alternative domain names to resolve a few of them, but they're really all part of the same "National Geographic online" operation. We should consolidate this info for the same reason we do it with fictional characters into the works they're from, and for divisions and subsidiaries of corporations (absent overwhelming evidence of stand-alone notability). If there's a lot to cover, it can be listified, e.g. List of Yahoo!-owned sites and services.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  20:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • Whew. I knew this one would have to be addressed at some point. National Geographic television is prolific, with versions all over the world, and all co-branded with the Society and Magazine on their website. Its a quagmire for sure. There are a couple major considerations:
    1. The use of "(TV channel)" in disambiguation is largely deprecated because it is inaccurate (referring to a virtual number). This is very much a television network and per WP:NC-BC should use "(TV network)". Individual articles about international versions can use (TV channel) since each represents a single stream of content originating from the main network.
    2. The network often self-identifies as National Geographic Channel (see twitter, instagram descriptions). It also drops the Channel part in other contexts. Other times it simply goes by "Nat Geo". "National Geographic Channel" is a nice alternative to for natural disamabiguation, "National Geographic (TV network)" is fine also.
    3. International versions aren't part if this move request, but we must take them into consideration. There does seem to be a strong value in keeping separate articles for each version, since that allows the usage of Template:Infobox TV channel to give localized information like launch dates, channel numbers, etc. and lets the article text cover changes to the service airing in those areas, such as media partnerships/joint venture information. Most of that can't be easily captured in a single merged page, so I am leaning toward keeping them all separate. That said, most (all) of the programming is the exact same across all these areas.
    4. The network has sister channels like Nat Geo Wild which also have international versions as above. How these are handled is inconsistent.
All in all, there are two structures I propose. Both involve splitting the US article in order to create a WP:CONCEPTDAB for the overall network rather than a list, to be the primary source of information about programming, general network history/etc, and include a chart of international versions to provide navigational aid. A large chunk of information will come from sections already in the current U.S. article. International versions (including US) would remain separate articles as well, to provide localized information.
Sorry for being long-winded. -- Netoholic @ 22:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Complex topic; sorry I got something important wrong in the OP.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, ideally. The country articles all look to me like they could merge into one article. Much of the stuff's redundant, much of what's not can be compressed to remove trivial details, and which variant offers what programming in its region can be put into a table. The need to categorize in categories for networks/channels by country can be handled with category-bearing redirects to the sections.

    Failing that, prefer Netoholic's Option B as more accurate – if all these national/regional affiliates or whatever they are all underwent the name change. If some of them still operate under the longer "National Geographic Channel" name (or equivalent in the local language) then some would need a different name. The CONCEPTDAB idea is a good one, though I'd still prefer a merge and a comprehensive article rather than a bunch of stubs and near-stubs. PS: It might even be the case that some non-English ones should be at non-translated names, if they don't really have a WP:COMMONNAME in English, though this is not an argument I'd press.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Geographic (magazine) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Geographic (U.S. TV channel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question re the TV show[edit]

Before there was a National Geographic TV channel, there was a National Geographic PBS show, like Nova or Nature. Where is that mentioned? Is there another article on it? I can’t find it. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! The shows get an extremely short mention in the National Geographic Society article. There needs to be some kind of redirection for them, though, if not a separate article. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"National Geographic (Africa)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Geographic (Africa). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"National Geographic (Israeli TV channel)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Geographic (Israeli TV channel). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"National Geographic (Turkey TV channel)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Geographic (Turkey TV channel). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"National Geographic (Spain TV channel)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Geographic (Spain TV channel). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"National Geographic (MENA)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Geographic (MENA). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Geographic_(American_TV_channel)&oldid=1204202442"