Talk:Sony Pictures Television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Where is the list of all the shows that SPT acquired? Did you cut it to save room? 71.111.215.224 21:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeannie[edit]

How come IMDB says Jeannie is owned and distributed by Sony Pictures Television? I don't think that series is owned by WBTV at all. King Shadeed 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

This page needs to be locked from vandalism since a lot of it has recently been going on. King Shadeed 16:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Scope[edit]

I was told by the editor Trivialist that this page contains excessive programs in the list. The user said that "Listing nearly every show SPT has been involved in is beyond the scope of a general encyclopedia article." I tried to shorten the list in February, but it was backfired. Maybe I have to set up a consensus to remove the programs older than and not initially or remain distributed by SPT in the program's production. If the criteria of said programs to get removed doesn't fit, additional discussions are welcomed as long if the list won't get very long and cluttered. TheGGoose (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In the "Shows produced and/or distributed by SPT" section lead, did SPT really distribute the "Columbia TriStar Pictures theatrical library?" TheGGoose (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes they do. And one suggestion I thought of, instead of deleting the list, why not make a separate page for them? It has a good amount of notes and references listed on several series. King Shadeed 22:25, August 27, 2014 (UTC)
I remembered an article that only includes a major television distributor's library of programs, just like your suggestion. I better take a look.TheGGoose (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • While I still can't find the article at this moment, here's an observation I detected: The 20th Television and NBCUniversal Television Distribution articles have extensive lists not tagged with problems. The Warner Bros. Television Distribution article is tagged for the suspected problems like in the SPT article, both done by the same user. The Disney–ABC Domestic Television article only has "first-run syndication programming" shows listed and it's not tagged for problems. The first three articles I described have similar depths of coverage to their own libraries. The article List of MGM Television shows is very similar to the article I'm looking for but it's not the target. In that article all the shows were directly produced/distributed by the company. If we can't find the very specific reasons for the tagged messages, we might have to ask somebody, I guess. The DreamWorks Classics article highlights its more-known properties in a similar way the SPT article summary describes and introduces the company's the vast content. TheGGoose (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I probably have to stop my search for the article I was talking about. A side note is that the same user who tagged the SPT and WBTD articles had removed a similar list in the Worldvision Enterprises article, and another user had removed more text about Worldvision's content they had distributed or produced, such as the show Charmed. I wonder how WP:IINFO applies exactly to TV program lists on company articles.TheGGoose (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'll have to look for sources for the WBTD page in the meantime. But back on topic. Should we make a separate article for the long list for SPT? King Shadeed 09:06, September 7, 2014 (UTC)
I think the list can go to a new article, which would list the programs SPT has or had rights and distribution to. TheGGoose (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I object to that idea: that list would come out as largely unsourced, and Wikipedia is not a directory. I know just how to solve this problem. We need to find reliable sources linking SPT to those programs to which it holds production and/or distribution rights. Several specific properties in SPT's library are very well known: Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune are the two highest-rated and longest-running syndicated game shows in the United States; Days of Our Lives and The Young and the Restless are among the most famous American soap operas, with Days also holding the distinction of being the longest-running scripted program in the world; and Seinfeld was hailed by TV Guide for having what it believes are some of the greatest TV episodes of all time. Thus, I believe it is necessary for SPT's most notable program content to be discussed in a single paragraph in this article with reliable sourcing. --SethAllen623 (talk) 05:44, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

New show in the 2waytraffic section[edit]

The show i added was Who Wants to Be a Millionaire: Canadian Edition a show that on Canada's CTV network — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarnerFX (talkcontribs) 18:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Abbreviations and Inc. usage[edit]

The same IP user who is using multiple IDs keep removing abbreviations from this page as well as the Sony Pictures Entertainment page without finding an article indicating why they're not allowed.

Plus, the same user keep adding the comma on the name "Sony Pictures Television" and "Sony Pictures Entertainment" by reading it as "Sony Pictures Television, Inc." and "Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc" KNOWING that I found sources reading that it DOESN'T use a comma.

Here are a few:

If the user would bother reading and finding reliable sources, then the user wouldn't bother creating an edit war by using multiple IPs. King Shadeed 00:56, March 3, 2015 (UTC)


I already explained why I ended up with more than one IP address. Do you not pay enough attention?

How about you, user shadeed, who sockpuppets as "Trivialist"? Nobody said that the abbreviations "weren't allowed." Some just think they're corny when they don't really have much of a point. Why don't you give one explanation of why you think they're so "necessary" on some of these but not on all of them? Huh?

71.219.22.154 (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not a sockpuppet of King Shadeed. Also, as I said on your talk page,
Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, "When an abbreviation is to be used in an article, give the expression in full at first, followed immediately by the abbreviation in parentheses (round brackets). In the rest of the article the abbreviation can then be used by itself." While you may personally object to this use, it is generally accepted for Wikipedia articles.
Trivialist (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where do you get off saying that I have a sockpuppet named Trivialist. You're the SAME person who did the SAME thing two weeks ago when you were known as: "65.130.220.206", "71.213.29.106", "75.162.218.114", "65.130.217.130", "75.169.30.183", "75.169.15.207", "75.162.203.151", and "71.219.22.154", who pulled the SAME thing as you did on THIS article, Sony Pictures Entertainment, CBS Television Distribution, Sony Music Entertainment, AND One Magnificent Morning by using multiple ID's! And I WARNED you about this two weeks ago, but you went RIGHT on ahead and did the SAME thing to call yourself edit warring with me! King Shadeed (Talk) 12:43, March 16, 2015 (UTC)