Talk:RTL Group

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Eurovision Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Luxembourg High‑importance

	Luxembourg portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Luxembourg, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LuxembourgWikipedia:WikiProject LuxembourgTemplate:WikiProject LuxembourgLuxembourg articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

88.128.88.150 (talk · contribs) has been paid by RTL Group.
193.16.163.244 (talk · contribs) has been paid by RTL Group.

Possible NPOV violations-please check

Possible negative POV pushing at RTL Television and here. Haven't reverted as I don't know the subject.--QuantumEngineer 13:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the inserted text. To be frank to me it seemed to be baseless rambling. RoToRa 11:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europe's largest TV, radio and production company?

"Europe's largest TV, radio and production company" - really? Bigger than the BBC? I'd like to see sources for that. Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is hard to believe for any Brit but there are way bigger media comapnies and TV networks in Europe. RTL IS much bigger than the BBC, even the ARD network is bigger... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.79.133 (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest is something which is capable of objective measurement, once you define what "largest" means (and I don't see that here). However, "leading" isn't. "Leading" in this context is a weasel word, and the whole article smells like an advert. --62.189.73.197 (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've slightly reworded (I'd be happy to see it re-described as #1 in Europe if there is a source for that), and removed the "advert" tag which IMO was a major exaggeration. This is a large successful company and must have done many things well. The article is a refreshing change from the typical niggly-to-hostile company article - see Johnson & Johnson for an egregious example Chrismorey (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge SpotXchange

A product line that is non notable outside of its association with the parent company. content should be merged here. WP:PRODUCT -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: SpotX has several independent references, suggesting independent notability. Klbrain (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an English Site

I object to seeing banners such as "Parts of the article is an indiscriminate contents. (September 2015)". I don't know what it's trying to say, but it's not saying it in English.

Start with "Parts of the article are" or "Part of the article is". Look up the verb 'to be' with google (not wikipedia, that's what got you into trouble in the first place). Once you've got that far, (Take your time, no rush), you would then need an adjective, such as 'red', 'slow', or indeed, "indiscriminate". There's no place here for a noun, such as 'contents'. Nor would 'batman' be useful, or 'London Bridge'.

Please could someone, who understands what the O/P meant, take it away and do something useful with it?

Same applies to the comment above. What is 'non notable'? (It appears that non notable is a Wikipedia expression. Its still lousy English. Try insignificant or maybe 'not noteworthy' instead). 82.134.197.202 (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)dutchdavey[reply]

'Indiscriminate' was meant in the sense of the relevant Wikipedia policy: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It seems that your concerns regarding grammar in the 'cleanup' template have been, at least in part,

Resolved

Klbrain (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contreversies Section

I don't know, it feels a bit biased to me, what are your thoughts? Atharva210 (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]