Talk:ETV Network

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


Neutrality ?[edit]

The popularity subsection should be edited to maintain neutrality. I know the TRP of etv has plunged at some period but it is not necessary to bash a person (in this case suman) for that in this article. -- Favicon (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge the article Etv India into ETV Network. krZna (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Etv India looks more like a duplicate to this article. Both refer to the same topic and the content also is almost identical. I propose the Etv India article be merged to the ETV Network article as the later has significantly more content. Thanks, krZna (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I AGREE There s no doubt that they are exactly the same topic. They need to be merged.--B. Srinivasa Sasidhar 04:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The merger is fine with me.Shyamsunder (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2012 (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.

Improvident move[edit]

It appears that the move from ETV Network, and associated changes made by editor Devmahatma on 10 October 2015 to this article, were improvident. The ETV Network was bigger than just "Colors", and Devmahatma has removed all references to the network. In fact he has recreated a substanially similar article to one that was redirected from Colors (TV channel) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colors Kannada. This appears to be an attempt to subvert the Afd process, and in the process remove an article that had better references. Compare the ETV Network article as it was on 18 August 2015, with the current article, and compare the current article with Colors (TV channel) of 1 Oct. 2015. --Bejnar (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are two networks involved and Devmahatma (who is a sock of Jaswanthvijay) has caused a lot of pain. Colors is a brand owned by Viacom 18 and five channels owned by ETV Network (of their 20 or so) have the license to use that brand. I think I've fixed most of the problem by fixing the redirects to the correct two networks, a problem created by the sock farm moving and copy pasting content here and there.This is the list of the only five Colors channels that are part of the ETV network. I came to this mess courtesy of Devmahatma's posting at WP:AN a few hours ago. —SpacemanSpiff 14:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as proposer Devmahatma was a sock of Jaswanthvijay.

I propose that Colors (Viacom 18) be merged into Colors TV. I think that the content in the Colors (Viacom 18) article can easily be explained in the context of Colors TV, and the Bar article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Foo will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Devmahatma (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2015 (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.

Requested move 11 October 2015[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Colors (Viacom 18)ETV Network – Undoing a page move that was unexplained and resulted in an article being wiped out. Unable to restore it myself as the author (deliberately?) changed the redirect after doing the move – Midas02 (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2015 (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.