Jump to content

Talk:A&E Networks

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

What do the initials stand for?

[edit]

It would be a useful addition to state what the initials A and E actually stand for. Andrew Oakley 14:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added the meaning of the abbreviation to the article. 98.193.77.218 01:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure if anyone ever answered your question, but A & E stands for Arts and Entertainment. Although the A&E network is anything BUT that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.229.79 (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's also what I came here to ask. Would make sense for it to say that in the article somewhere. In much of the English-speaking world 'A&E' means 'accident and emergency', the part of the hospital you go to for emergencies (called ER maybe in the US)--XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 05:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shareholdings

[edit]

How does this work:

The new ownership ratio became Disney-ABC TV Group and Hearst both with 43% and NBCUniversal 16%

If Disney-ABC and Hearst both had 43% and NBCUniversal had 16% then who has the remaining 41%? If Disney-ABC and Hearst each had 43% and NBCUniversal had 16% then that's 102%. Beck13 (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common name

[edit]

Wikimandia, A+E Networks is not its actual name. [A&E Television Networks, LLC is its actual name and "A&E Television Networks", or "A&E Networks", (short) is its common name (which the wlinke will tell you articles should be titled) as "+" is a stylization for "&" which used to be a letter of the alphabets. The plus is to differentiate the company from the channel, I do believe.--Spshu (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viaf.org, which you added, doesn't recognized it as A+E but "Arts and Entertainment Network". --Spshu (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Spshu They've definitely rebranded the company as A+E Networks. They want to differentiate between A&E the channel and the parent company. Look here and scroll ahead to 2011 on the timeline: "A&E Television Networks is rebranded as A+E Networks." The specific channel is still A&E, and there are still fragments of "A&E Television Networks" in places, but the name of the overall company has been changed to "A+E Networks" everywhere. Additionally VIAF is not always consistent with names. Often the same person or company will have 10 different names; that's why the Authority Control NUMERIC system is in place; because names are inconsistent. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not even speaking to the issue. Official name is the reason you gave for the move (Wikimandia moved page A&E Networks to A+E Networks over redirect: actual name), which is incorrect, as that isn't their official name. Brand is again incorrect as the title of an article. Again this is against WP:COMMONNAME; branding is not the standard used on Wikipedia nor isn't the official name. Basic if you don't understand that you should not be moving page what so ever. If is viaf an Authority control than it should be removed as inaccurate. Spshu (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 June 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guanaco 09:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A&E Networks → A+E Networks – As there has been a plus sign in the logo for the last 6 years (including the new one), it is my assumption that the plus sign is used as an ampersand. Therefore, "A+E Networks" should be the name of this article. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:590A:22F5:CBB:4688 (talk) 02:11, 12 June 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.

Article for Blaze

[edit]

I think Blaze should be given back its separate article. If more sources are cited in the article, then there would be no reason to merge it into this article. The channel can have its own article standing alone without being part of its owner's article. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:5C90:D6E7:9239:B393 (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement to be covered by major American newspapers to establish notability. The fact that Blaze is a nationally available general entertainment television channel should be enough to establish notability in the spirit of WP:BCAST. National Freeview channels are similar in impact to cable channels in the U.S., which are "generally presumed notable" according to that page.
Since 2017, Blaze even has original content commissioned for it (sources: [1][2]). Furthermore, the inclusion of information about Blaze makes this article messier than it needs to be. So there's an obvious need to split off Blaze into a separate article. Väsk (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A&E Networks. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

[edit]

I propose that sections Blaze be split into a separate page called Blaze (A+E Channel).

Crazyseiko and Spshu I support a content fork - it's a standalone channel that has been reported in the media - but, it's misnamed. It would be more descriptive and accurate as Blaze (A+E Channel), since it's apparently also in Spain. [[3]]. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was never explained that the channel was now being broadcast across other parts of the EU, remember it takes to tango. I support your move! --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. A) The proposed page name (Blaze (A+E Channel) nor Blaze (UK and Ireland)) is incorrect as it is and it was explained to Crazseiko that it was in other countries. The correct article name should be Blaze (TV channel) if moved. B) There is not significant coverage in main stream coverage of the Blaze channel to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Most news coverage has been routine by niche news website (like rapidtvnews.com). If we had significant coverage by major press outlets. The Mirror article is about the show, Flipping Bangers, with only a mention that it is on Blaze. Being a standalone channel is not the only requirement of notability. Spshu (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ONLY person that been snooty has been you, with your pure arrogant comments. with comments like " discussion not completed, discussion is not happening properly" It should also be noted this user has failed to talk about anything, and this was the first time they made any effort, Yet still has time to edits to page or given users edit warnings, im sure if people didn't go around given people false warnings, it would not hack off other users. Point A, was only explain by someone else With point B: that is not true, its noticable if we had proper page:
Listing of sources from article

Following are on the Blaze section

other piece from web search

This company made Music for the branding: https://www.zeligsound.com/blaze this company made the presentation for the channel https://twitter.com/DixonBaxi/status/823447704827203584?s=20

its NOT noticable yet channels that are NOT freeview like this have pages??

None of these pages should have there own page then and should be merged back into the VERY LONG main article These all have fewer refs are tucked away on Premium channel platforms yet are somehow more WP:NOTABILITY Lifetime was only in the UK!

I wrote the Blaze section, those sources do not make Blaze notable. Nor do any of the sources turned up in your search. Blogs and Twitter general don't even qualify as sources. Source need to have significant coverage of the subject. Nich news websites like digitaltveurope.com give routine coverage of TV subjects. OTHER stuff rules out bring up other subjects as there situation may be different. Spshu (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Spshu: Didn't Väsk already point out in a comment to you a few years back that it already meets WP:BCAST?
Notability may be presumed for a radio and television broadcast station if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of a variety of factors, such as importance to and history in the station's market, or originating some of its own programming. A brief explanation of the broadcast market may be needed in the guideline for editors to make informed decisions.
* Television stations – The vast majority of over-the-air television stations serve a large regional market, often covering millions of households. The regulatory authorities, such as the FCC in the United States, grant each station a monopoly on a substantial portion of radio spectrum to carry their programming, and most metro areas only have a dozen or so television channels. In turn, the TV stations must devote certain hours to public affairs and educational programming, and grant equal time to political candidates. Because of the public interest served, most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes.
* Cable television – Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable. Public access cable stations are not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area. For example, a statewide public access channel, or a channel for all of New York City could be presumed notable. A "governmental access" feed that runs a text generator of community events plus city council meetings for a population of 50,000 is not generally presumed notable, but can be conferred notability by meeting the standards set forth in WP:CORP.
I think you're making the same mistake some users make when they arbitrarily prioritize a text-based source over a video source, or when someone assumes you need a source that's freely available online when it's already established that a reference to a book or academic paper that isn't freely accessible are also valid citations. If we can verify that a cable channel exists through reliable sourcing (niche or not), then it meets notability.
You objected in that older thread by saying "There are only 5 sources which are specialty news outlets, not major at large outlets like New York Times, LA Times, Wall street Journal. If we can fined some then I would agree" (which you have also echoed here again), but if we follow that logic tons of sports/hobby related articles and biographies of people involved in niche subjects or professions wouldn't meet your criteria of being notable because you don't consider such publications satisfactory. I've partaken in editing niche subjects on Wikipedia forever and I've never come across this level of benchmark. Majority of boxing, MMA, anime and independent films (and even topics on religious/theological concepts) wouldn't meet your criteria of mainstream publication coverage. DA1 (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should have been spilt ages ago.. --Crazyseiko (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it should have been split ages ago. Mark999 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I’ve already done it. Visit Blaze (British and Irish TV channel). I even added some categories. But I think I’ve forgotten to add foreign availability. You are free to move it to Blaze (TV channel) or Blaze (A+E channel). TheWiiikiBeStrong (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A%26E_Networks&oldid=1197121129"