User talk:Netoholic

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

Some thoughts:
"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)
"There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Wikipedia is not a democracy."
Jimmy Wales

Naming conventions cable channels[edit]

Stop moving/renaming cable TV channel to TV network in regards to FYI channel, Bravo, Speed, etc. Please stop misapplying the convention. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting) example, "Viacom (corporation) operates the BET Networks (network) which provides its flagship BET (channel) and others, such as Centric." "...and usually because it provides content via multiple content streams" is not a hard and fast rule given "usually" is present. None of the follow are broadcasted over the air via stations nor provide other channels (not including international or time zone versions).

  • In the Case of FYI, A+E Networks (corporation and network) operates FYI, a channel.
  • Speed was a channel of the Fox Sport Group network.
  • NBCUniversal (corporation) operates NBCUniversal Cable Entertainment Group (network), which includes the Bravo channel.

Each of these articles will most likely be move back "as a non-controversial request" per my last request to correct this type of error at MIliltary History. Spshu (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


Re: this edit, in fact I think something like these examples are needed. I think it's important to include some examples where no disambiguation is needed in a TV series article title. Believe me – there are a number of newbies who think that every new TV series article has to end with "(TV series)", whether such disambiguation is needed or not. So I think having 2–3 examples of TV series with non-disambiguated titles at NCTV is actually useful... --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Can you find examples from unrelated naming convention policies showing this to be a common practice among them? Also, The very first paragraph of WP:NCTV has such examples, so no need to be redundant. -- Netoholic @ 03:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Does that matter? The question is whether including some non-disambiguated examples at NCTV is a useful idea. I think it is, because moving new articles from "TV Show X (TV series)" to "TV Show X" while citing WP:NCTV (which would include some non-disambiguated examples) would be helpful in setting the occasional newbie straight. Now I'm open to a discussion of what examples we might want – it doesn't have to be Frasier and Gilligan's Island per se. But I think having 2 or 3 examples of this at NCTV is a net-plus. I see your point about the couple already being in the lead, but I think having a few examples in the "list section" is probably worthwhile (maybe more so than having an example or two in the lead...). --IJBall (contribstalk)
@IJBall: - The same argument could be made then that we'd need non-disambiguated examples for every section on that page, and that would clearly clutter the guideline beyond necessity. You would not cite WP:NCTV to set a newbie straight, you would instead cite WP:PARENDIS or WP:NCDAB to confer the wider practice of avoiding preemptive parenthetical disambiguation which is true across all topics on Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 03:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I still think have a couple of listed examples like before is a net plus. Yes, a couple of examples are included in the lead, but having a couple (more) in the "list" part will catch the "skim readers". In short, I don't think more examples is a bad thing, esp. because non-disambig'ed version have been included at NCTV for a while now... And, personally, when I move a TV series article like in my example above, I'm going to cite WP:NCTV in the edit summary, not those other two. --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)