Talk:Nick Jr. (British and Irish TV channel)

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Television: British / Nickelodeon / Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Nickelodeon task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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

Image:Nickjr 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is empty.[edit]

What am I going to do now?

17 September 2009 14:06 (UTC)

Article is now restored.[edit]

All clear.

18 September 2009 19:12 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 September 2012[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Nick Jr. UK

86.44.202.58 (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense request - nothing to do. Bonusballs (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 4 October 2012[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Nick Jr. uk 86.41.32.210 (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continued nonsense from this IP address range. Not done. Bonusballs (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

Do you think someone should protect this article? TDFan2006 (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct[edit]

An edit has blanked and re-directed this page 3 time in the last week. So does it have enough notability in its own right? Murry1975 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that it clearly does. If you check Finealt's edit history you can see he has blanked and deleted material from hundreds of kids' tv articles in a very short space of time. There's no reason why this channel is any less notable than any other channel in this country or anywhere else. If there are problems with the content of the article then by all means discuss them, but deleting the article by the back door - i.e. replacing it with a redirect - so as to avoid a proper deletion discussion is clearly an abuse of process. Bonusballs (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced programme lists[edit]

I've removed the unreferenced list of programmes from this article. See Talk:Pop (UK and Ireland)#Removal of unverified information for rationale. Discussion could take place there. —SMALL JIM 14:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I'll repeat what I just wrote at Talk:Boomerang (UK & Ireland) as it's relevant here too:

I've removed the completely unreferenced Programming section again. Regarding the "Current programming" list, WP:NOTTVGUIDE may be relevant, but more importantly how can the reader be sure that it is up-to-date (even if it has a reference)? Providing a link to a list on the channel's website instead would be far preferable because it would be guaranteed to give current information. And without references, the "Former programming" list is completely useless – how can anyone trust that it's accurate? —SMALL JIM 10:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. These unsourced, ephemeral lists that rely solely on the primary sources are ridiculous. People interested in Current Programming should go to their cable provider's programming lineup. With the persistent disruptions at articles such as these, and the continuously lazy, unsourced, sloppy editing, there is no presumption of accuracy, which renders the entire effort as worthless. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Does anyone want to have a go at presenting a convincing argument to the contrary? —SMALL JIM 21:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the programme lists have crept back since the above was posted. I've removed the lists again because the above still applies and no-one has made any arguments to the contrary. A very persuasive argument would have to be provided to explain why inclusion would benefit the encyclopedia. —SMALL JIM 15:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we get rid of the History section?[edit]

It has been unsourced for years, but I believe information backing the section up is available in WebArchive. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use dispute over image Old Nick Jr logo.png[edit]

The file File:Old Nick Jr logo.png is being considered for deletion for as a violation of WP:NFCCP #8: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."]]

Discussion of this deletion proposal can be found on the talk page of image itself. — trlkly 20:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:MTV (British and Irish TV channel) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]