Talk:Star Television Network

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

Starcast at launch[edit]

So "Sources provided back up info in article" as I wrote it not as what you the IP editor changed it to. As it is not clear that the "Starcast" was used at launch per the sources. STN is acronym and thus isn't a former name either, it is just an abreviated way to refer to the network like "Star" or using some one's initials or first or last name. Spshu (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as how you clearly did NOT pay attention to the wording of the articles...
1st link (Oct. 15th, 1987): refers to the network's pre-launch common name (what the public would call it) as "Starcast"
2nd link (Jan. 25th 1988): again refers to the network's pre-launch common name as "Starcast"
3rd link (Apr. 18th, 1988): refers to the network's pre-launch common name as "STN" (kinda like how eventually Colummbia Broadcasting System became CBS, American Broadcasting company ABC, National Broadcasting Company NBC, & so on & so forth)
4th link (August 25th, 1989): refers to the network's pre-launch common name as "Star"
5th link: nothing more than a repeat of 2nd link
6th link (Jul. 13th, 1990): refers to the network's pre-launch common name as "Star"
7th link (Jan. 17th, 1991): refers to the network's common name at launch as "Star"
Now, as far as your reasoning about the abbreviation of the network's name, take a look at the article for the Fox network ("Logo" sub-section of "Branding" section) & then I will gladly accept an apology from you when you realize you were wrong. So, in the end, it would appear that I was paying more attention to the contents of the articles than you were. 2602:304:CEBF:82F0:9D85:3417:978E:CCE (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again link 3: "Star Television Network, the Orlando network of oldies television programs, expects to be on the air in July, about three months later than projected." So, you are not reading the articles correctly. Link 3 to 7 in h ow you refer to them are just using an abbreviated name for the network, just like some one using another person last or first names only. Your argument was that it was official "Starcast" & "STN" at launch then changed isn't there. Fox is not Star TV Network, so is irrelevant. Common name isn't the branding name. Spshu (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AT FIRST (apparently, the key phrase YOU do NOT seem to understand), the network IS referred to in those articles by its FULL name (so as to let people know what the later-on common name refers to), but every reference THEREAFTER in those articles is to the network's COMMON name ("Starcast" & "STN" prior to launch, then "Star" at launch & afterwards) (the common name being what the public would know it by). FYI, the COMMON name IS the public branding of the network. It is unfortunate that you apparently aren't very knowledgable when it comes to how businesses work. And, as far as my reference to the Fox network, it was, for a short time, originally known as "FBC" (an acronym of Fox Broadcasting Company, it's full name) before the name was changed simply to "Fox". The news articles provided prove the same situation with this network. Also, it seems like you are NOT understanding my argument: it is NOT that it was known as "Starcast" & "STN" at launch, then had a name change to "Star" at launch. My argument IS that PRIOR (as in before, pre-, etc.) to the network's launch, it was commonly referred to as "Starcast" & "STN", then at launch & afterwards, it was referred to as "Star". Some other examples, as I have pointed out, is how CBS was originally known as Columbia Broadcasting System, NBC National Broadcasting Company, ABC American Broadcasting Company, etc. And, as far as references to the network's name, unless you can find any other references to the network in news articles that use a different reference to the network's common name, the common name used in the articles provided is what the public would know the network as & therefore is what the network was known as at any particular point in time. However, seeing as how we're getting nowhere with this argument (which you clearly are losing, you just don't want to acknowledge it out of embarassment), maybe the best solution is to enter into a dispute resolution with an uninvolved third party to see what they have to say. 2602:304:CEBF:82F0:9D85:3417:978E:CCE (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't what you are supporting. You are talking about branding not common name. Common name is not necessarily the public branding. Branding is what the name the company uses. So attempting to draw a conclusion of what the branding was from what the journalist called it, so they would not need to continually use the full name, incorrect.
1. " Initially referred to as STN prior to its launch, then Starcast at its launching, the network switched brandings shortly after its launch."
2. "Initially referred to as Starcast & STN prior to its launch, the network switched brandings shortly after its launch."
See, your edits above have been inconsistent as you don't even supported the same conclusion.
You are confusing common names and branding. Yes, some times like your major network example they rename the network to match the common name. Branding also includes logo, slogans, colors, etc. So with that should it be referred to as "TV Heaven"? "TV Heaven": "The programming concept will be marketed as 'TV Heaven'..." Spshu (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I meant to apologize for getting the dates for the brandings wrong. I just forgot to apologize in my previous post. Statement #1 would be incorrect, whereas Statement #2 would be correct. Now, as far as common names/branding, we don't know how the network referred to itself (unless you can find an archived version of the network's website or press/news released issued by the network), so the only other thing we have to go by is how it's referred to in news articles, and in the news articles for the network, it's clearly referred to as "Starcast" & "STN" prior to its launch, then "Star" at & after its launch. Now, as far as "TV Heaven", the infobox CLEARLY states that that phrase is moreso along the lines of the network's slogan, much like how CBS's is "America's Most Watched Network". A slogan is NEVER used as a network's branding. For you to say it is makes you look stupid. And, as far as how the public knows the network, the news articles clearly reference the network being referred to as "Starcast" & "STN" prior to the network's launch, then being referred to as "Star" at & after it's launch.
Then again, juding by some videos posted to YouTube: [1], [2], [3], & [4], the network referred to itself either by it's full name, "Star Television Network", or by simply "Star". Of course, I don't know if YouTube videos would have any credibility in a discussion on here. 2602:304:CEBF:82F0:9D85:3417:978E:CCE (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, did a search on Wikipedia through Google & came across THIS. Now, if those videos are indeed credible, that means we have information from the network itself as to how the network referred to itself on TV: the network referred to itself either by its full name (which almost ALL the major networks did at the start of their existence) or by simply "Star" (which, according to the videos, can be confirmed as how the network referred to itself to the public). So, while the three articles refer to three common names/public brandings (Starcast, STN, & Star) for the network, the videos refer to one common name/public branding (Star) for the network. 2602:304:CEBF:82F0:4925:6EA1:7F0F:272D (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
Looking at the article and the sources, it looks like this network was originally supposed to be named "Starcast" and then was changed to "Star Television Network". It looks like "Star" and "STN" were short forms of the name. So in the former names box I think it should just be "Starcast", but throughout the article it's ok to shorten it to either STN or Star, so long as it's consistent. All the forms should be provided and bolded in the intro. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I read you correctly then no judgement is to be made about branding name at or after launch to the point that there of these two statements should exist in the article:
1. " Initially referred to as STN prior to its launch, then Starcast at its launching, the network switched brandings shortly after its launch."
2. "Initially referred to as Starcast & STN prior to its launch, the network switched brandings shortly after its launch."
As the argument is over brand = these short names. You seem to indicate branding beyond Starcast isn't available. I would just like a clear statement for the IP editor. --Spshu (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being the IP editor making the argument, my statement is that, whereas it was "Star Television Network" that operated the network (similar to CBS Broadcasting being who operates CBS; NBCUniversal, Inc. operating NBC; American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. operating ABC; & so on & so forth), according to the news articles, the network was commonly referred to first as "Starcast", then as "STN" prior to the network's launch, then commonly referred to as "Star" at & after the network's launch (similar to "The CW" being what The CW Television Network is commonly referred to). As I stated in the other thread, I should have apologized in a previous post for getting the dates of the branding wrong. Statement #1 was wrong, whereas Statement #2 is correct. And, as I stated in the other thread, we don't know how the network referred to itself (unless you can find an archived version of its website or news/press releases put out by the network), so the only other thing we have to go by is how the network was referred to in news articles. From my interpretation of the news articles, "Star Television Network" was the parent company of/operating entity for the network, whereas "Starcast", "STN", & "Star" were what the network was commonly referred to in the news.
Then again, juding by some videos posted to YouTube: [5], [6], [7], & [8], the network referred to itself either by it's full name, "Star Television Network", or by simply "Star". Of course, I don't know if YouTube videos would have any credibility in a discussion on here. 2602:304:CEBF:82F0:9D85:3417:978E:CCE (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, did a search on Wikipedia through Google & came across THIS. Now, if those videos are indeed credible, that means we have information from the network itself as to how the network referred to itself on TV: the network referred to itself either by its full name (which almost ALL the major networks did at the start of their existence) or by simply "Star" (which, according to the videos, can be confirmed as how the network referred to itself to the public). So, while the three articles refer to three common names/public brandings (Starcast, STN, & Star) for the network, the videos refer to one common name/public branding (Star) for the network. 2602:304:CEBF:82F0:4925:6EA1:7F0F:272D (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[[Wikipedia:Videos as references#YouTube still states you may not use YouTube videos. Nor is there any time date stamp of when those clips were shown. Also, the videos also refer to it as "Star Television Network". You are just trying to hard to read into the article and the videos. Spshu (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the two videos that display the network's "TV Heaven" slogan above the network's logo, in the circle below the "TV Heaven" wording, the logo that's used for the network ID says "Star". Look for yourself: [9] & [10]. So, even though there's no data publicly provided as to when those promos originally aired, those two videos refer to the network's common/public branding (what it would use to ID itself to the public) as "Star". And, as far as the news articles that make reference to the network's name, the full name of the network is used only once (to let the reader know what the article is talking about/referring to), for the first reference to the network. Every other time the network is referenced, it's called either "Starcast", "STN", or "Star"; similar to how the major networks would have been referred to by the branding they currently use. That's how news articles work: the first reference to a network is to the network's corporate name (usually the company that operates it: e.g. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. for CBS, NBCUniversal, Inc. for NBC, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. for ABC, Fox Broadcasting Company, Inc. for Fox, etc.). The second reference to a network is the public/common branding (a.k.a. how it IDs itself to the public; e.g. CBS for Columbia Broadcasting System, NBC for National Broadcasting Company, ABC for American Broadcasting Company, Fox for Fox Broadcasting Company, etc.). So, the "Starcast", "STN", & "Star" brandings that the articles use as references to the network is how the articles commonly refer to the network. Now, for whatever insane reason, if you're going to say that the common/public branding used as references to the network in the articles shouldn't be acknowledged as the network's common/public branding, then we go by how the network is named in network promos; in which case, according to two videos I linked to, the network name used is "Star", along with the slogan "TV Heaven". So, there's the explanation for why both you & the other user have been wrong this entire time about the Star Television Network's common/public branding (what it IDs itself to the public as). 76.235.248.47 (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then, you want to have the article contain inaccurate info (therefore perpetrating a lie).....so be it. Wouldn't be the first article on here that's wrong & it probably won't be the last either. When it comes down to it, I'm not going to argue anymore, because I don't argue with idiots, ESPECIALLY when it's been PROVEN that what those idiots are saying is wrong. To be frank, should someone decide to re-launch Star at some point in the future & acknowledge MY explanation as the network's history, it's going to be you two idiots who are going to come off looking stupid. In fact, wouldn't surprise me, ONE.FREAKING.BIT., if whomever does decide to re-launch the network comes here & has Wikipedia edit ban, however possible, the BOTH of you idiots. So, I suppose I should say.....enjoy what editing time you have now, because when the time finally comes: 1) don't say you weren't warned & 2) I'll get to say those 4 magical words.....I.TOLD.YOU.SO. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have made it clear that you wish to imply from the promos which cannot be implied. Stopping your inaccurate claims from the sources doesn't cause any inaccuracies. There is no "perpetrating a lie" except in your view. It hasn't been "proven" and the only one looking stupid is you. You have no "I told you so".
The article does not need to be duplicated on the talk page. --Spshu (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I've previously stated...

When it comes down to it, I'm not going to argue anymore, because I don't argue with idiots, ESPECIALLY when it's been PROVEN that what those idiots are saying is wrong.

You have the right to believe whatever you want. BUT, remember: just because you believe something doesn't make it true, UNLESS you can put forth verifiable information & indisputable facts to back up what you believe. I have done that; you & the other editor have NOT. Once I've posted this reply, I'm not going to bother with you anymore. Soon enough, the truth WILL be put forward & it WILL end up with you & the other editor looking stupid & rightfully so. And, WHEN that situation happens, I will be able to say, "I told you so."
Now, if you continue replying to this thread, I will take action by reporting you to Wikipedia for harassment; it would NOT surprise me if that results in you being blocked from editing. I know what the truth about Star is; you do NOT. I look forward to Star's eventual revival, because that would result in you no longer being able to edit Wikipedia & rightfully so.
So, I am now done dealing with you. If you're smart, you won't reply to this thread. And, you should NOT take this response as me backing down from my stance OR as me admitting you're right. I bid you farewell. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article displaying correct information (a.k.a. "I told you so")[edit]

So, Spshu tried arguing all they could that what 76 was puting forth was wrong/inaccurate/etc., even after 76 gave sources showing what they were saying was true. But, looking at the article now, it would seem Spshu finally owned up to their lack of intelligence & their stubbornness in not wanting to admit when they were wrong & walked away from the article, not wanting to face the embarrassment & humiliation of having to admit they were indeed wrong. So, I guess it can now finally be stated, without a shadow of a doubt: Spshu was indeed perpetrating a lie in not wanting to have correct information put in the article; the sources given throughout the article indeed prove that the information in the article is proven correct. And, the best part of all: Spshu has indeed been proven to be stupid (probably why they don't want to come back to this article, for fear of being seen as what they truly are). So, in the end, it turns out that 76 did in fact have a point to the 4 words that they wanted to utter to Spshu when Spshu was finally proven wrong.

So, in honor of 76's point finally being proven true/correct, & Spshu no longer wanting to show their face for this article, I will repeat to Spshu 76's very valid 4 words...

I.....Told.....You.....So. 2600:1700:C960:2270:78AA:A9BB:2CD9:EC9 (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 March 2017[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: not moved (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 01:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star Television Network → Star Television Network (United States) – Disambiguation. See other topics listed at Star TV. See also the ongoing discussion at Talk:STAR TV. Note that there is also some other prior discussion of the article name on the Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may be their categorization (TV network), which would be used in "()" if there was a similarly name entity. But that isn't their common name as that would be what you would be asking to rename them to at Talk:STAR TV. There is not another Star India, Star Select, etc. thus no need to further add disambiguation which would only be like this: "Star India (TV network)" not Star Television Network. --Spshu (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work that way, see wp:primary redirect for the principle involved. Andrewa (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: I'm very uncomfortable about this. The guidelines don't seem to support a move, strictly speaking. And I'm not a great TV viewer, but ISTM that Star TV is a very likely search term for all of the articles listed by BarrelProof above, and more. And maybe I'm wrong about the guidelines, see primary topic... Star Television Network doesn't satisfy either of the criteria. Difficult. Andrewa (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at STAR TV, Star India, STAR (Greater China), Star Select, and Zvezda (TV channel) and none are called "Star Television Network". The closest we have is the Chinese STAR was briefly known as "Star TV network" from 1988 to 1990. There is no ambiguity or conflict here. This article is the only use of this title on WP. Not difficult at all. If anyone does happen to search for one of these others Stars with "Star Television Network" a hatnote link will take them to the dab page. No problem. --В²C ☎ 00:36, 15 March 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Television_Network&oldid=1204258033"