Talk:Animal Planet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] US Version vs. Other versions
This article, as with the other domestic Discovery Channel articles, covers the US version of Animal Planet. Versions for other nations should be covered under entries for those separate versions -- just as has been done for other American channels that have overseas counterparts. --Mhking (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is, the article is not very clear as to what its focus is, Animal Planet as a whole or just the US channel. It needs to be retooled specifically to say that, if its going to be limited to that, and then articles made for all of the others, including Animal Planet Canada, Animal Planet International (AKA UK), and Animal Planet Australia, at the minimum. Right now, it seems to be a combo of Animal Planet US and Animal Planet International, with only Canada appearing to have its own page. Collectonian (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The new Animal Planet logo won't make its appearance until tomorrow or Sunday.
The new Animal Planet logo won't make its appearance until tomorrow or Sunday. It will replace the 12-year-old elephant and globe logo. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Three letter abreviation
what would be nice is if someone could put down the three letter abreviatoin for animal planet. For example NFL and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.3.182 (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Content
I think this page might benefit from more information about its programming - some sort of attempt to characterize it more clearly but succinctly, in addition to how that programming has evolved since the channel started. I think that quote about the nature of the recent change is relevant - but left me feeling like that section was kind of incomplete. I actually did a fairly lengthy paper on Animal Planet as documentary in graduate school - it's one of those topics that on the one hand seems like irrelevant pop culture, but the closer you look at it, there's a lot to it. It's also a fairly popular and widely-viewed channel, despite the ratings drop mentioned in the article.Sinderbloog (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
--Also, while I know I should complain less about changes that need to be made and should just attempt making them myself (time, time,...), I do think it's odd that some of the pages for individual shows on the channel are actually of comparable length to the channel's page. Thoughts about sections to add? A response or reception section? More on revenues/business end of the channel? Pop culture references? Part of the problem, as always, is sources -- there isn't much secondary source material on the subject, a problem I ran into while trying to write a paper on it. Sinderbloog (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)