Talk:Cartoon Network (US)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cartoon Network (US) article.
Article policies
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. 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 has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments
CN This article is within the scope of the Cartoon Network WikiProject, a project to protect and maintain articles relating to Cartoon Network. If you would like to participate, you may join at the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-priority on the priority scale. Top


Archives: 01, 02.

Contents

[edit] super saturday

someone took down the part about super saturday that was on cartoon network that aired at 7:00 to 1:00 pm-69.113.232.143

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] prime time

should\could someone put prime time back? even though it wasnt that important, it was a block on cartoon network. so it should have some mention. respond or i will put it back.The Legend of G (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] end date 4 ben 10

we all know that ben 10 will end, but who got the end date? i just want it to be accurate.The Legend of G (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon Network news site

I know of a new Cartoon Network news site and I wanted to put it on the page but I'm sure someone will come along and say I can't. It's a real .com and the news is real. I'm also aware that people tend to ignore the discussion page and I don't feel like waiting until April to respond so I'm going to be adding it on Monday.70.160.17.246 (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:EL before you add it. Unless it's published by, or officially endorsed by, Cartoon Network, chances are it'll be removed. Yngvarr (c) 17:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you absolutely certain about that? I happen to know of a bunch of external links here that are definitely not endorsed by said networks or persons. It seems that some links are ok but only if they're either reliable or popular. I understand reliability because that's important but I don't think popularity helps Wikipedia in it's goals. I took a look at "Wikipedia: External Links" and I see no reason why the link shouldn't be ok. I won't harp on this subject because I don't own the site but I'd feel pretty good to help out the webmaster since he's providing a good and reliable source of information.CN Guy (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain about it too. Those links might be on other articles but this isn't those other articles, the best this site could be is either a rumour site or merely the press releases by proxy. Add it and let people figure out if it's reliable or not. --treelo talk 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've decided not to, I don't want to get into a bunch of drama because someone wants the page a certain way. Wikipedia needs more moderation. See ya guys!CN Guy (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not going to try and explain that odd conflict of wording there but whatever, your choice with the link but shouldn't have let someone else decide for you though. --treelo talk 13:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move, and I think it's a bit of a no-brainer myself - this article is about the US channel only. Andrewa (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:53180 made a request on my talk page to move this page back to Cartoon Network (which is currently a disambiguation page). I had recently moved Cartoon Network to Cartoon Network (US) on the request of another user (User:Treelo) for the reason of naming conventions. Opinions on the matter would be appreciated. ... discospinster talk 21:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggested the move because there is several different versions of Cartoon Network and whilst the North American channel is the first, it's certainly not the only one hence the disambiguation page. Also, having one national version at Cartoon Network is biased towards that specific variant, the other territories have the naming convention Cartoon Network (country/region) so the US article should follow that. The article the disambiguation page replaced was much too long and duplicated a signifigant amount from various other articles. I'd personally like to hear a better reasoning than "It's the main one" or "It should be there". --treelo talk 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment While the "it's the main one" argument is a nasty one - if the US version was the original (which I'm not rightly sure of), wouldn't it be the originator? Perhaps the US version should have a section listing the international versions (if related)? Of course, this is all assuming the US one was first and the others are descendants. JPG-GR (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering the US Cartoon Network was launched a year prior to any other international version, what's not to be rightly sure of? No comment either way about the disambig page, since my comments were made earlier and elsewhere. Yngvarr (c) 09:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Support, But keeping a subsection of CN US in the main article.  A M M A R  19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Cartoon Network (US) article should be moved back to Cartoon Network, and the Cartoon Network around the world article should be available again for information on international variants. 53180 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)53180.

Oppose moving. I am pretty sure the World Wide Web is actually available in more countries than just the US, English is spoken in several of those other countries, and at least two where English is the primary language (Australia and the UK) use exactly the same name and logo. It's reasonable to expect that they would expect to type in "cartoon network" and get their version. Why shouldn't we accommodate all English-speaking users equally? They don't tune in to "Cartoon Network UK" - they tune in to Cartoon Network. Isaacsf (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I'm with Isaac on this, the cartoon network is in plenty of countries, to the point where I imagine many many more watch a Cartoon Network outside the US than watch within it. The article focuses on the US network so it should retain the disambiguator. Narson (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Boomerang-logo (CN).gif

The image Image:Boomerang-logo (CN).gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section...

Are we going to put this back in the article? --Particleman24 (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, if we're talking about the most recent back in April then I felt it introduced unnecessary POV pushing against CN with no objective viewpoint. Further back to November and prior, maybe but viewers are generally harshly critical with zero logical grounding if something changes to their distaste even if it's a logical business change but opinion is discounted over fact anyway. Looking at it, unless someone can get some good verifiable critiques of CN then they're free to add a new criticism section but the past iterations of it have been baseless, poor and generally magnets for bashing and conjecture. treelo talk 02:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I am starting to understand the need for a criticism section given some of Cartoon Network's action and that I am noticing that their non-original programing (with a few exceptions) is no longer being aired in reruns and the removal of Toonami from weekdays is a cause of stress. But I'll also agree that wording has to be in a neutral stance. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
As usual, find this area of neutral critiques about CN's current programming choices and you'll have something to base a criticism section on. However, if all it comes down to again is fanboi mewling about how their favourite shows don't air, how their anime slots are being disrespected again or just how they're not doing things how they used to then forget it. Yeah, it is criticism but it's also fanboi criticism, the least reliable and most polarised of any you can find. treelo talk 09:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but still. Criticism is criticism. Also, it's spelled "fanboy", not "fanboi". --Particleman24 (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
fanboi FTW. Criticism is not criticisms, especially when it comes from fan forums which are populated by, well, fans. In other words, fan forums are going to be naturally skewed one way or another. And you know where the word fan comes from? Fanatic. Fan forums are not the most balanced places to find valid arguments. And let's just face it, for every single "criticism" that appears on a fansite, how many silent non-critics will never see those fan sites to be able to voice their own opinion? They're just not a valid source, and I point to WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, if you really need to hammer that home. Yngvarr (c) 01:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, don't want to spell it out anymore than Yngvarr has already but really, if we do decide that a criticism section is required then where do you source it? Can you get it from somewhere reliable? Can you maintain a neutral POV with these sources? Remember, when people say "criticism", it does not mean that it's only to show a negative viewpoint but to also show the positive one as well and you'd better be able to show both areas of opinion rather than the very negative that you'll find from their most vocal of fans who are predisposed to being very binary in how they feel about this channel. Onus probandi's on you, buddy. Find something good, make a writeup in a sandbox in your userspace and then come back to us. treelo talk 11:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)