Talk:NBC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Television Stations, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Television stations. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
This article or list is a nominee for the Version 0.7 release of Wikipedia. See the nominations page for more details. |
[edit] Requested move
NBC → National Broadcasting Company — There is no source that says NBC officially changed its name to just NBC, ALL THE TIME they refer to themselves as the National Broadcasting Company, they only sign their programs with their parent companies name NBC Universal, but that is not the same as NBC. When they refer to NBC professionally it is the National Broadcasting Company, they explain this on the 30 Rock Tour as well. ~ grahambrunk 20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Weird vandalism
I saw some vandalism here replacing the word peacock with penis, when I went to edit it I found the word peacock was there, yet the article still had penis. Editing and saving seemed to undo the vandalism. User:GarethNelson
[edit] "NBC Universal Television"??
Who calls the National Broadcasting Company "NBC Universal Television"? This is not the name that Americans know it as. If anything, NBC should redirect to the National Broadcasting Company article, like it USED TO, and make all these less-known NBC thingies into NBC (disambiguation). Mike H 05:28, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
- A recent announcement that this logo would be used again suggests an "NBC Snake" remake may be used when the network would enter fully at the HDTV era.
-
- When was this announced? I can't verify this on the Internet. Can someone provide a link to the announcement?
-
-
- Whoever put that there is trying to cause a prank to all the people, because it is COMPLETELY FALSE. It would be major news if it was true and so far there is NO SOURCES ABOUT THIS AT ALL, that person who made that edit in this talk page is an idiot--Jimmysal 19:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] NBC Pictures
I wanted to cut up the logo montage to place individual logos with each description. However, there are ungodly gaps in the text, which look awful. I think a friend of mine was using Mozilla Firefox or something of the like, and he said it looked fine. IE doesn't make it look pretty. Can someone help? Mike H 05:20, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Page move
(from WP:RM - page not moved)
[edit] NBC → National Broadcasting Company
- Please help me with move. National Broadcasting Company is the official name of NBC Universal's US broadcast subsidiary. Edwin 22:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Agree. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Undecided. I'm inclined to agree with you, but I need better reasons to jump aboard. I don't see the need when the redirect as it currently is suffices...as is the case also with Columbia Broadcasting System redirecting to CBS, and British Broadcasting Corporation redirecting to BBC. The only one I've found, of the major American networks that breaks this mold is ABC which goes to a dsambig that lists American Broadcasting Company (FOX isn't an acronym, so they don't count). PBS and NPR redirect to the long form, but they're different anyway. Give me something more, and I'll change my vote, but I haven't been won over. —ExplorerCDT 07:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Explorer, why are PBS and NPR different?? You say "they're different" like the reason is totally obvious. I have no idea what reason you have in mind. 99,999 times out of 100,000, when someone says "PBS", they mean Public Broadcasting Service, same for NPR. I see no difference. Revolver 21:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- The most likely reason, according to Bkonrad, is that the full name National Broadcasting Company is no longer official, but that Public Broadcasting Service still is. Georgia guy 23:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Disagree. Explorer up there gave some good reasons to leave it alone. SECProto 19:16, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
- The name should be the official name, also NBC could refer to the 'National Bowling Congress' or the 'Newfoundland Barbering Commission', National Broadcasting Company is clear, and doesn't leave many other options as to its identity. Edwin 21:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I guess you could make NBC a disambiguation page, but I'd say about 99,999 people out of 100,000 will be looking for the National Broadcasting Company, not the Newfoundland Barbering Commission or the National Bowling Congress. But, I guess this is trying to be all-encompassing, so an admin can go ahead and change it, but i'm not changing my vote :P SECProto 03:40, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
- The name should be the official name, also NBC could refer to the 'National Bowling Congress' or the 'Newfoundland Barbering Commission', National Broadcasting Company is clear, and doesn't leave many other options as to its identity. Edwin 21:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose - isn't the National Broadcasting Company likely to be by far the most likely intended article? There is an NBC (disambiguation) article so I would leave this where it is. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Abbreviation is overwhelmingly more common, and other expansions are nowhere near as widely known. [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 19:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Disagree. Explorer up there gave some good reasons to leave it alone. SECProto 19:16, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Georgia Tech vs. who?
...someone at NBC in New York heard the WSB version of the notes during a networked broadcast of a Georgia Tech football game and asked permission to use it on the national network.'
Who was Georgia Tech's opponent? This line makes it seem like they were the only team playing. If we don't know who the opponent was, perhaps we should remove the mention of Georgia Tech? Beginning 03:43, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree.--Firsfron 01:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
- I've replaced it with a more general "collegiate football" reference until we determine the opponent. Beginning 03:45, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Looks good to me.--Firsfron 01:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
You aren't going to find an opponent. The story is a myth.
College football games simply did not have the popularity to warrant a national network radio broadcast in 1927. While researching my own NBC chimes history page The NBC Chimes Museum I discovered that during the time period this intrusion of the WSB chimes over the NBC network is alleged to have happened, Georgia Tech was the owner of WSB's biggest competitor, station WGST. WGST was the exclusive home of Georgia Tech football and radio broadcasts from the time Georgia Tech took it over in 1923 until they sold the station in the 1980s. --Shoshani 03:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] List of Affiliates in Intro
It owns and operates stations serving the Chicago; Philadelphia; Los Angeles; Miami; New York City; Washington, D.C.; San Jose; Dallas/Fort Worth; San Diego; Hartford, Connecticut; Raleigh; Columbus, Ohio; Birmingham, Alabama; and Providence, Rhode Island markets.
Is this really necessary, given the List of NBC affiliates article we already have? An incomplete list of affiliates really doesn't belong in the intro, in my humble opinion. I'll be bold for now, and remove it.
Danthemankhan 03:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] NBCi
The page NBCi redirects to NBC, but the article doesn't even mention the network's failed internet venture, NBCi. -T2X 06:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] logo section too long
The logo section takes up almost 30% of the article. This is way out of proportion to its importance. Why not a separate article? Revolver 21:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Done; at National Broadcasting Company logos. Georgia guy 18:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] ABC in lead?
Should ABC really be mentioned prominently in the lead of this article? -Scm83x 02:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] NBC News and the BBC?
I've never heard of any sort of agreement between NBC News and BBC News, as is mentioned in the NBC News section of this article. I think, but I'm far from certain (or authoritative), that the BBC actually teamed up with ABC News. (I've seen a BBC reporter on ABC's early-morning program, "World News Now.") Again, I'm far from certain and certainly not an authority on the subject. --Oddtoddnm 06:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I was wondering the same thing myself.. BBC News 24 (available on digital/cable tv in the UK) airs ABC's World News Tonight live on weekdays, and as far as I know there's no NBC-programming on any BBC channel (or vice versa). BBC News airs on PBS-stations in the US and on BBC World only.. --Pneumaman 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Television History
The television History of NBC is quite bad compared to CBS, ABC, and FOX. I don'y really know much about it, but maybe someone out there does?
- Actually, you made an edit saying that only one new show is renewed, but actually there is like 5-6 new shows that actually got renewed by NBC. Also, when you said that the History of NBC is bad, that is not true, NBC had a sucessful period of #1 hits back in the 1980's and 1990's. For Example, Cheers, Seinfeld, and Friends were hits. And also, MAKE SURE YOU ADD THE SIGNATURE WHEN YOU ARE DONE ADDING COMMENTS ON THE TALK PAGE!!!--67.34.212.113 09:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Dont be so rude. Also, he was talking about the article, not NBC's actual history.Yet-another-user 08:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More info on Television Section
I noticed there is a lot less information in this article about NBC-TV and a whole bowl of information about it's radio business because NBC has more information about it's television history and this article doesn't put in the extra details in there, so could anybody please expand the Television section and trim down the radio information, thanks--Jimmysal 19:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Add most-watched programs of the network per season since 2001-2002?
I recently added a table of the most-watched programs of the network of the 2001-2002 season. I meant to include the TV seasons following 2001-2002, up until the present. However, another Wiki user had deleted it shortly thereafter. My question to anyone here is should tables of the most-watched programs per season since 2001-2002 be included? I believe that such an addition is informative and an interesting read. Let me know what you think. -- Dechnique23 00:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
There is no reason why the studios for NBC need to be seperate they should be placed together by someone.--Chalutz 05:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Negative, The parent article is already plenty long; adding the elements you cite would make the article inordinately long and certainly unwieldy. --Mhking 05:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Mhking is right...there should be seperate articles for NBC's studios, just there are for CBS, ABC, and Fox. It's enough information to merit its own page.ShawnHill 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy
I restored the small piece about an incident of political censorship. Items like this may be discounted as insignificant or not meriting our attention, but is it really beneficial to pursue an article that reads more like a sales brochure? It seems quite relevant that the ad was rejected on the grounds that it was disparaging to the president of the United States. It seems to be relevant to many, even if the majority inside the USA who elected a president and support his policies might like to see such criticisms just disappear. 198.60.22.24 09:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't assume political actions behind every Wiki edit. As the source referenced states, NBC fully expected to work with the distributor to create an ad that would work better, but they chose instead to run screaming "conspiracy" to the press to drum up support. That does not imply a good faith effort on their part. It's thoroughly within a major TV network's right to reject an ad that's going to anger a large and passionate section of their viewing audience, not to mention damage the relationship they have with those in Washington that can help them report the news. ("Free Speech" unequivocally does NOT mean "Freedom to access to whatever media you choose, despite the wishes of the private media outlet in question.") Shall we go back and try to list every commercial ever rejected by NBC, or should we counter with all the claims from the right that NBC is an overwhelmingly liberal company (Katie Couric's "Today" days, Keith Olbermann)? No.
The fact remains that very few people know about this little dust-up, and fewer people care. (And it clearly hasn't had long-term detrimental effect on the career of the Chicks.) It's simply not noteworthy enough to be included on this article.
Oh, and no "sales brochure" on NBC would ever mention Supertrain. Lambertman 15:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- If there are verfiable sources on this matter, then it's likely sufficiently noteworth for inclusion as well. If there aren't verifiable sources for the accusation of censorship that it may qualify as defamatory, and should not be included. Notability is not a requirement for inclusion of information in an article, verifiable sources are. i kan reed 19:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requested 3rd Opinion
I think this is a small event in the history of NBC and does not belong in this article. The comment about how the commercial was accepted by CBS but not CW, furthers the argument that this is a statement notable to the documentary, not the network. While NBC's rejection of the ad was not a major event for the network, it was for the documentary and this paragraph would probably be useful if added to Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing. This appears to have already happened. Selket Talk 19:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The 1956 trade with Westinghouse
During 1955, NBC announced it would sell its radio and television combination in Cleveland, comprised of WTAM-AM-FM and WNBK television, to the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in exchange for Westinghouse's Philadelphia stations, KYW radio and WPTZ-TV. After the deal was approved in February 1956, NBC renamed the Philadelphia stations WRCV-AM-TV, while Westinghouse moved the KYW call letters to Cleveland.
However, the ink had barely dried on the deal when Westinghouse complained to the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Justice Department, claiming that NBC had extorted them into agreeing to the deal. It turned out that NBC had threatened to pull its television programming from both WPTZ-TV and WBZ-TV in Boston unless Westinghouse agreed to the swap.
Following a thorough investigation which lasted several years, the FCC and the Justice Department ordered the swap reversed without NBC realizing any profit on the deal. NBC regained control of the Cleveland stations on June 19, 1965, renaming them under the WKYC call letters. NBC sold WKYC-AM-FM in 1972 while holding onto WKYC-TV until 1991.
I removed the above text because it's dealing in heavy detail on a single market; in the grand scheme of things, it's not that important. Lambertman 19:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I restored this section because it is pertinent to NBC's history, and BTW, it focuses on two markets, NOT one. Rollosmokes 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I still don't see its long term effects on NBC. Fill me in? Lambertman 20:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Anybody else have any opinions? Lambertman 19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
