Talk:Discovery Channel (Australia and New Zealand)

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Discovery-logo.jpg[edit]

Image:Discovery-logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Discoverytravel 158x200.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Discoverytravel 158x200.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 January 2019[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: the first five articles are not moved at this time, per the discussion below. In the final three cases, there is no consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles in this discussion. I would suggest waiting a bit and then initiating a new discussion to reconsider whether or not to add "channel" in some form to those titles. Dekimasuよ! 21:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Another proposal to move some cable TV channel articles to the correct "by country" disambiguation, as per WP:NCBC (and WP:NCTV).
information Note: I've proposed shortening the name of Discovery Channel (Middle East and North Africa) to Discovery Channel (Middle Eastern TV channel), as per WP:CONCISE – however, I also intend to create Discovery Channel (North African TV channel) and Discovery Channel (Middle Eastern and North African TV channel) as redirects if this proposal passes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. --C0re1980 (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - personally I don't like the disambiguation style for channels as NCBC is currently written. I know I'll likely be a lone voice here, but the "TV channel" part seems redundant to me. The country alone as a distinguisher seems sufficient, as there's no other mediums named "Discovery Channel" to confuse it with beyond a television channel. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and WP:NCBC. Whats new?, if you feel the guideline is insufficient or wrong, the correct course of action would be to propose a change at the guideline page. Picking and choosing what we follow and when, is what WP:LOCALCONSENSUS talks against. --Gonnym (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 'Channel' is already part of the names. Per brevity and conciseness, and probably stable names. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Randy Kryn and Whats new?: In fact, "Channel" is not part of the title of the last three listed – care to revise your !votes then?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the official websites of the UK channel, it is called Discovery Channel or Discovery Channel UK [1] [2]. Some reliable sources also indicate Discovery Channel [3] [4] as opposed to "Discovery" as the parent/corporate company: ie. from a BBC article: Discovery's portfolio in the UK includes Discovery Channel, Eurosport,... (bold added for emphasis). So if anything, Discovery (UK and Ireland) is perfectly fine, and should perhaps have the "and Ireland" dropped, not have "TV channel" added. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, given that Discovery Civilization is a redirect to Investigation Discovery because it is a former name, I would suggest making Discovery Civilization (Latin America) the base title (it is the only channel which still uses the name) and using hatnotes to link to the four channels that previously used the name (spelt with 'z' or 's'). The poorly titled disambiguation page Discovery Civilization / Civilisation Channel should probably be moved or redirected also. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I share the concern that some of these are named "Discovery" and others "Discovery Channel" when they seem to describe analogous channels. I am also sympathetic to the concern that "TV channel" is redundant/non-concise when the name already includes "Channel". -- Netoholic @ 04:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we at least agree that if the channel in question does not contain the word "Channel" in the article title, as in the Discovery (Canada) and Discovery (UK and Ireland) cases above, then the current WP:NCBC system of moving them to Discovery (Canadian TV channel) and Discovery (UK and Irish TV channel) is preferable and correct?... Because a lot of the NCBC cases that are out there needing to be "fixed" are like that – e.g. various MTV and Nickelodeon (channel) articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I personally think "TV channel" is redundant including cases where "Channel" is not in the title, but I'm likely alone in that. I also don't think the UK or Latin channels are currently best-placed per previous reasons -- Whats new?(talk) 06:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not adverse to alternate proposals (I think I'd actually support a move to Discovery UK or Discovery UK (TV channel) for that one....). But a blanket oppose screws up Discovery (Canada) which should absolutely be moved according to current WP:NCBC. (And I agree with Gonnym on this point – if people think NCBC needs to be modified, that's a separate process – for now we should move to what the naming convention dictates for cases like Discovery (Canada) where additional disambig. is absolutely justified as per WP:PRECISE.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • On principle, I agree and do support move to Discovery (Canadian TV channel). I also don't think it would be a bad thing to drop "Channel" from all and use the same disambiguation method for all. While many sources may use the longer name, in general I think dropping "Channel" fits with the network's overall current usage. I need a lot more evidence to support moves like "Discovery UK" though. "Discovery UK" more often is used to identify the entirety of Discovery (network) in the UK, not this specific channel. -- Netoholic @ 07:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm simply opposed to moving the first 5 at all, I'd support moving the UK article to Discovery Channel (UK), and move the Latin channel as I described earlier. I disagree with ALL the proposed moves, thus my blanket oppose. I may start an RfC to proposal an overhaul to NCBC in the future, but I think conciseness is overlooked by NCBC, and using the word "Channel" twice in the title is redundant -- Whats new?(talk) 08:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a tricky issue – on my end, I think I'd give the most weight to things like the onscreen "bug" and websites for the network – in those situations, if it's "Discovery Channel" in the bug, etc., I'd stick with "Discovery Channel". But I know at least some of them have dropped "Channel", and go by just "Discovery". Incidentally, I believe the latter is true of the U.S. channel, but that one is still at Discovery Channel – it should probably be moved to Discovery (TV network) or even Discovery (U.S. TV network). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • You surely have to go by reliable sources, not a watermark/logo. That rationale totally ignores WP:RS -- Whats new?(talk) 22:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Um, no – following the onscreen bug and the website would completely fall under WP:PRIMARY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • If that's what you're going by, then 'southeast' should be dropped from Asian article and official site uses "Discovery Channel Asia" [5]; Australian website uses "Discovery Channel" [6]; its not a one size fits all. When Nationaal Geographic dropped "Channel" it was covered in media [7] [8] [9] - secondary sources should need to back up dropping "Channel" in a particular region. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, usually true. Or press releases from the channel will usually state the "official" name (and may even be released when there's a channel name change). So you wouldn't likely need to rely just on onscreen "bugs" – but they'd be among the quickest/easiest way to figure out "official names" for cable channels. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No need for the redundancy per WP:CONCISE. Calidum 21:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Calidum: Any thoughts on the Canadian channel entry? Even if you argue the others are "redundant", that one is not, and is contrary to WP:NCBC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest, I’d rather keep it as is per WP:CONCISE or move it to Discovery Canada per WP:NATURAL. If you want us to consider each name separately, you shouldn’t propose these en mass. Calidum 18:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The topics of these articles are abundantly identifiable from the current CONCISE and PRECISE title; the proposed titles epitomize unnecessary disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 23:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current disambiguation method is up to snuff. -- Flooded w/them 100s 07:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only for those that contain "Channel" in the name – at least two of these don't, and are insufficiently disambiguated, as per the guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the WP:CONCISE policy. The current titles are perfectly adequate and recognisable, there is no need to make them longer.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2019 (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.

Wrong wording[edit]

I think that the content in Shark Week Line 2 seems a bit biased to a certain point of view, but I am don't know what we shall do about this since the author would've created it with best of intentions. But it is something that it is hard for everybody else to believe. --Qwerty123M (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 September 2022[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Discovery Channel (Australia and New Zealand) per the discussion below. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery (Australia and New Zealand) → Discovery Channel (Australian and New Zealand TV channel) – The title should be inline with other article per WP:NCTV and WP:NCBC John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 12:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move but suggest the title Discovery Channel (Australia and New Zealand) — I added the principle that when substantially all the topics for a given article title are of like kind (e.g. TV channels), the disambiguation can and should be shorter. (But that has yet to be applied.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposed title by Sammi Brie - it seems redundant to have that it's a channel twice in the name. Turnagra (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopening Opposition registered on my talk page almost immediately after closure. Reopening for further discussion. As with other reopened discussions, other pagemovers/admin are welcomed to close the discussion when a consensus has been achieved.– robertsky (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru any updates? it has been 7 days. – robertsky (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - OK, I've had a look around sources and it seems a little confusing, but as far as I can tell the "Channel" part has largely been dropped, see for example [10] which calls it "Discovery HD". The title should be as simple as it needs to be per WP:CONCISE, and this current name is fine. We should also rename similar unwieldy titles like Discovery Channel (Canadian TV channel) back to their status at the time of the 2019 RM, which rejected moves.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be concise, sure, but it also needs to be precise enough to be clear on what it is - I'm not convinced that the current title does that. I don't mind whether it's Discovery Channel (Australia and New Zealand) or Discovery (Australia and New Zealand TV channel) - though the former would be more natural - but I think it needs to state it's a TV channel somewhere in the title or disambiguation. Turnagra (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Well in a choice between those two options I would definitely prefer Discovery Channel (Australia and New Zealand)... So I suppose the original move to Discovery Channel (Australia and New Zealand) can go ahead, and I apologise for wasting people's time. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Relisting to give folks an opportunity to respond to Amakuru's comment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Discovery_Channel_(Australia_and_New_Zealand)&oldid=1206981871"