| Revision as of 18:03, 25 August 2014 editSpshu (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users30,712 edits →TV network versus TV channel← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:03, 12 September 2014 edit undoGamaliel (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators94,059 edits →User:Netoholic/sandbox: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| ::# The ] section only talks about the flagship channel/service while the other channels histories are relegated to a in the article. | ::# The ] section only talks about the flagship channel/service while the other channels histories are relegated to a in the article. | ||
| ::# The programming seems to only talk about the Showtime channel with no reference to any other Showtime channel. | ::# The programming seems to only talk about the Showtime channel with no reference to any other Showtime channel. | ||
| == User:Netoholic/sandbox == | |||
| This has been brought to my attention. If you are going to start an RFC or an ANI post with this material, please do so within a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise, I'm going to ask you to voluntarily move this material somewhere else, such as a Google doc. Storing this indefinitely in userspace is inappropriate and creepy, sorry. ] <small>(])</small> 18:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:03, 12 September 2014
| Some thoughts: | |
|---|---|
"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
|
"There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy." |
Re:Infobox
I'm toying with templates in my userspace for now. YE 18:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Because you thanked me
|
You thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt... YOU'RE WELCOME, Netoholic! It's a pleasure, and I sincerely hope that you enjoy your continued improvement of this inspiring encyclopedia! – Paine Ellsworth |
21:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Templates
I am just doing the same thing that you did to me. I am not trolling, you are just looking for an excuse. When I made a change to {{infobox hurricane}} you reverted and said discuss it. When you made a change, I reverted and asked you to discuss it. But no, you continue edit warring, which you've been blocked for numerous times. It seems like the "template police" adhere to a different set of rules (or probably none at all). I am going to revert back for now, and I will wait for the results of a project discussion that at least involves several members of the project. United States Man (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- United States Man - When you say "I am just doing the same thing that you did to me", this is an admission that you are violating WP:POINT and WP:HOUNDING me. If you have a specific issue with the templates, please explain that issue (as I did when I reverted you in that hurricane case). Do not revert 'just to get back at me'. This is why I called it trolling, and it seems, by your own words, I am right. If you continue to edit war just to be combative with me personally, then you need to take a break and think about that attitude. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Those are the most rediculous harassment allegations that I have ever heard. I would have disagreed with anyone who made those changes without a discussion. Usually: 1) Someone makes a change 2) Someone else reverts the change 3) A discussion is started. You seem to be incapable of collaborating with others. I am an active member of WP:SEVERE, and I found those changes to be unhelpful. If you think your version is the only way and can't bring yourself to discuss, I will just start a discussion and notify active members of the project. United States Man (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Reverting me by saying "you need to discussion with the project" is directly counter to WP:BOLD. I made beneficial changes to a template that hardly anyone has looked at in 5 years. I described the MoS and usability basis of the changes, and my changes did not break anything. My motivation was after finding a single use template whose function I could eliminate by adding a notes parameter. If you think there is an actual problem with the changes I put in, then explain yourself. Do not revert solely on the basis that it was a bold edit. And definitely do not revert just because you want to do "the same thing that you did to me" as payback of some pathetic sort. -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Those are the most rediculous harassment allegations that I have ever heard. I would have disagreed with anyone who made those changes without a discussion. Usually: 1) Someone makes a change 2) Someone else reverts the change 3) A discussion is started. You seem to be incapable of collaborating with others. I am an active member of WP:SEVERE, and I found those changes to be unhelpful. If you think your version is the only way and can't bring yourself to discuss, I will just start a discussion and notify active members of the project. United States Man (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
TV network versus TV channel
06:26, 9 September 2013 Netoholic (talk | contribs) m . . (42,639 bytes) (0) . . (Netoholic moved page Showtime (TV channel) to Showtime (TV network) over redirect: "television channel" refers to the broadcast frequency or number in program guide, "television network" is the right term for the content provider)
- While your definition indicates the origin of TV channel, this is incorrect for cable channels per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (broadcasting): "Fox Entertainment Group (corporation) operates the Fox Sports Networks (network) which provides the Fox Sports 1 (channel)." Please request that Showtime (TV network) be moved back to the correct "Showtime (TV channel)". Spshu (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Spshu. That page is at the right place. Showtime Networks (corporation, note the plural) owns the Showtime (TV network), which provides individual channels like Showtime, SHO2, and Showtime Beyond (all channels with no separate articles about them). -- Netoholic @ 20:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note that Fox Sports Networks is plural too as both usage may just be a sign of the use of Network as a synonym for channel instead of WP usage in naming conventions plus both have other networks with in the corporate structure (Fox Sports Networks: Fox Sports regional network & Fox Sport national network: Sports 1 & 2, Soccer+, Speed, Big Ten; Showtime Networks: Showtime network, The Movie Channel network plus two other channels). But yes, the list of the other Showtime channels does make it a bit more questionable. Spshu (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Spshu - Fox Sport is perhaps a bad example to use in the naming convention due to the complexity around its regional vs national channels. Don't get too hung up on the word "Networks" in the name of the entities. Sometimes, the parent corporation uses that term, sometimes the network does, and sometimes the individual channel does. Showtime (TV network) is the right name. Think of it this way: the particular content stream identified by a number in your cable/satellite program guide is the channel. One level up from that is a network that operates that channel and probably others. One level above that network is a corporation which owns the network. An article "Showtime (TV channel)" would be only about a single "numbered" content stream (ie channel). Since the Showtime (TV network) article describes multiple channels, then the article is about the network. -- Netoholic @ 02:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- One it was you who focused on the plural: "Showtime Networks (corporation, note the plural)". There can be related subjects in the same article, so yes the article can be the Showtime channel plus the related other Showtime channels. In the article:
- The disambig. statement: "This article is about the U.S. television channel."
- The infobox is the "Infobox TV channel" (although there is is no cable network infobox but a broadcasting network infobox)
- The history section only talks about the flagship channel/service while the other channels histories are relegated to a in the article.
- The programming seems to only talk about the Showtime channel with no reference to any other Showtime channel.
- One it was you who focused on the plural: "Showtime Networks (corporation, note the plural)". There can be related subjects in the same article, so yes the article can be the Showtime channel plus the related other Showtime channels. In the article:
User:Netoholic/sandbox
This has been brought to my attention. If you are going to start an RFC or an ANI post with this material, please do so within a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise, I'm going to ask you to voluntarily move this material somewhere else, such as a Google doc. Storing this indefinitely in userspace is inappropriate and creepy, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)