Talk:Benfica TV

	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 Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).

New logo

The channel logo has changed to "BTV". Someone upload it. Fixed4u (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTV

The page should be renamed to BTV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.82.66 (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it should not, the official name is Benfica TV (source), and the channel is called/known by both names (example). SLBedit (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I hope Threeohsix won't be rewriting the article. SLBedit (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't intend to, but it's needs to be done and I hope it's not by you. Any other revert and I'll report you vandalism--Threeohsix (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So stop adding the tags without discussion. What is wrong with the article? Just because it wasn't written by you? SLBedit (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained in the tag. Please visit other TV articles to better perpective.--Threeohsix (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Third opinion SLBedit (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should do that. Ask for a third opinion.--Threeohsix (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. You are the one disputing the article. SLBedit (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there should be a thorough discussion over the matter if this content dispute can receive a third opinion. Both sides need to represented properly, and I cannot even identify what is the dispute from the above discussion. Assuming that this section has been the only discussion up till now, you both can ask for a 3O after the discussion has carried forward for some time and reached a standstill. For more information, see the main instruction page. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. It's my understading that this article needs to be redone in prose and with only the most important information because not everything that happen related to BenficaTV needs to be here. Now it's just a cronological collection of data and I don't believe TV stations should be presented like this. Articles from clubs TV are generally poor, but the few that go the extra mile, like LFC TV or Arsenal TV have a history written in prose. The dispute stems from the fact that the other user, which has a weidly possessive control over everything Benfica related, doesn't think nothing should change and that he should just keep dropping information here randomly. Although it's eager to provide information, he doesn't know what it's encyclopedic or just trivia. I'm obviously not telling him to do the required changes, but he sees it that way and takes it personal, immediately insulting me. This scorched earth policy isn't really the point of Wikipedia.--Threeohsix (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, every article needs to be improved but a radical change to an article should be discussed. Do you want a clone of the articles you mentioned? You don't follow the rules and yet you accuse me of not knowing the rules. You try to control Benfica articles with your POV and English mistakes – both not encyclopedic – and you say that I control them (I edit them a lot because Benfica is my main interest), and you take it personally. You accuse me of insulting you but "shut up" is not an insult. You accused me of not creating articles when, in fact, I do. You accused me of not contributing to Wikipedia when, in fact, I do, more regularly than you actually. Would you stop harassing me? SLBedit (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're objections to the placing of a tag is exactly what? He don't make copies, but there standards to follow, it's the quality scale, can you point out a good article or featured article written in this similar fashion? Plus radical changes are being discussed and again, this is not about who does the changes, but why do you object to placing the aforementioned tag.--Threeohsix (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your plan of rewritring everything. I agree on some points you made (like removing excessive/promotional information and changing to prose) but I disagree with your intentions of ignoring and destryoing other users' work completely. SLBedit (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm repeting myself, I never intend to work on it, just tag it so someone notices, what they do is up to them, this discussion will hopefully help them.--Threeohsix (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Start by poiting out exactly what should be removed or changed. SLBedit (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be uncivil, if you don't know how to rewrite an article in prose, don't remove tags because you don't like it. A tone tag says everything it's needed. It's needs to be condensated into a text, choose what encylopedic and what just trivia and then be written in a manner consistent with the manual of style guidelines. Remove the tag and everythings is fine, doesn't solve anything and it's the goal of WP.--Threeohsix (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing or adding the tag won't solve anything but I will readd it to make you happy. SLBedit (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Threeohsix stopped adding the multi-issues tag because of opposition from SLBedit and tried adding the "smaller" tone tag, but still got opposition. I really don't think it appropriate to remove "major" tagging on an article that's largely your own work, unless you've fixed the problem, or you believe it vandalism, or something of the sort; if you believe it good-faith editing, work it out, and if you believe it bad-faith, request admin intervention for vandalism. Threeohsix, if you now believe that it doesn't need the multi-tag, feel free to remove it and put the {{tone}} back; I don't personally have an opinion, because it looked like you were requesting administrative intervention and didn't just want my input in this discussion. I'll go and file a request for a third opinion. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: First, thanks for the quick answer, the issue was quickly resolved once the user visited my contributions and noted I reported his behaviour. I didn't really need admin intervention in such a smaller manner, but since I know his "battefield" approach, I would be pointless to argue anything, let alone start a revert war for a tag. I needed to ask a third opinion just so I could place a tag... A multiple issues or tone tag is fairly similar in this mather, like I was once told, tagging is just mere band aid in an article, and until an editor devotes his time, nothing will change. The only thing abnormal is like you said, instead of focusing on the tag, why not fix the problem himself.--Threeohsix (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the article after you tagged it, while you did nothing to improve it. SLBedit (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the person giving a third opinion

The "Rewrite" section, up above, is what I requested a third opinion for. I participated in addition to the two main people, but my opinion was only on the behavioural side, not on the substantive side, because I'm staying out of the "content or sourcing disagreement between two editors". One party requested admin intervention on my talk page; I wasn't asked to come here and get involved as a normal editor, so I'm intentionally not participating in the discussion, if that makes sense. If asked, I'll watch from the sidelines and, if needed, use admin tools to enforce the third opinion. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a "behavioral" comment; I don't think anyone will be able to give a third opinion until you two stop the borderline battleground behavior. And frankly, SLBedit, it doesn't even seem like you're disputing the tags; it seems more like you're disputing the dispute about the tags. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question anyway? If the question is whether the article should be tagged, I would say yes. However, maybe I don't know what the question is. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: If you're interested in providing a third opinion, and it's not entirely clear what the dispute is, I'd personally suggest using the {{subst:third opinion|Robert McClenon}} template. This template will post sections for the disputing editors to summarize their opinions.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below. (@SLBedit and Threeohsix:ping—Godsy^(TALK_CONT))

Viewpoint by SLBedit: I want to know which information is promotional, what is wrong with the tone, and what should be removed, added, or rephrased. SLBedit (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoint by Threeohsix: I have always explain me, but I'll do again. The history section needs expansion, eating up all of "timeline" events which should be written in prose, consistent with wikipedia guidelines. Timelines are only used in special events. That alone is merit of tagging the article. Now explaining the first part. The stuff that do exist, is biased towards promoting the subject. Example: "It obtains profit for the first time"; "It surpasses 100,000 subscribers" (do readers even want a yearly update of subscribers?) ;"It is the second most watched TV channel on Portuguese television during O Clássico" ; "Benfica S.A.D. publishes the channel's gross profit of €28.1 million". The WP:NPOV goes both ways. For instance, do any outsider to the subject know that despite having "gross profit" of 28M, the net profit hasn't reach the 40M that Benfica wanted from SportTV, not even the 22M offered. There's a strong intention of directing the reader, to the idea that broadcasting it's own TV rights was the best choice. And if that's the intention, at least describe the whole competition with Sportv, because clubs TV stations, don't purchase TV rights of foreigner leagues, why it happened .... how it happened.... Also, the content, what the TV produces, is essential in a TV article, what is "As lanças apontadas" or "Canela até ao pescoço", do people are supposed to guess?.--Threeohsix (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion by Robert McClenon: ....

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Benfica TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]