Talk:MTV (Canada)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Contents |
[edit] Did some housecleaning
I did a little cleaning, but there's still work to do.
[edit] The page is a mess
Theres alot of unnessary info here how should we get rid of some of the stuff and re organise the page
[edit] Does it make a sound?
I'm more than mindful that this brings up an interesting scenario - can a specialty channel not have a name while it's in the middle of changing names? Talktv (or at least its brand name and its old schedule) is, from all signs, about to disappear while the full-on MTV hasn't launched yet. I'm provisionally going with "yes", although it seems most logical to have the article at "MTV Canada" pending the relaunch. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 04:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, that's embarrasing - the actual programming, and apparently the talktv brand, stay the same. Alas a quick-and-simple move back to talktv isn't possible so the time it would take to do so wouldn't be worth it. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 12:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I'm so excited for this!
I can't wait for this to happen. I have had high hopes for MTV Canada since Craig Media launched it.. but it failed to impress. Then after Chum rebranded it as that god-awful Razer.. I thought hope was lost. Now CTV has it .. and I hope they hit this one out of the park.
[edit] Muchmusic is changing!
Has anyone noticed some changes on Muchmusic? I think they're trying to change a bit because MTV is gonna be some good competition for them. They've started adding a lot of interactive features to MOD (web-cam requests) and they've added a bunch of plasma's on the top of the ceiling..
[edit] Not really
MTV Canada isnt really going to be in competition with Muchmusic because it will play little to NO music. I think they should keep this structure and apply for a new licence in the mean time. If MTV can get TRL here and more American content then it will really be in competition with much otherwise it's just another youth oriented tv station.
- MTV isnt in competiton with muchmusic but MTV Overdrive is and what ever happened to that other MTV station that they were supposed to have they said it would be a more music oriented station
[edit] I was at the first show
I went to the first show today - it was really good. everyone is really nice and professional! we got a free MTV Live tshirt, & the jazz guy's CD/DVD !
LOL the show was such a bore...they've got a lot of work to do down there Vikramsidhu 17:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- i agree the show was a bore and the sad part is that the repeat it so many times from 2am to 3pm its MTV Live MTV Live hacked and MTV's e2. what makes it worse is that MTV Live and MTV Live Hacked are the same show with the exception of the dialog box
[edit] Cable positions
I don't want to add this to the article just yet because I'm not sure how widespread this is, but Rogers in Fredericton NB, which only had TalkTV on digital from day 1, added MTV to the analog lineup today. Did something like this happen anywhere else? Kirjtc2 05:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
In Toronto they were supposed to keep MTV and Talktv on the same channel. Talk tv was on channel 64 and then it moved to channel 59 when MTV was about to launch now some people in appartments cant get the channel if its on analog seems odd... ROGERS MOVED IT TO DIGITAL CABLE AND PUT IT IN A DIGITAL SPECITALY PACKAGE. ARRG
[edit] Update the article
Could someone update the MTV Canada article from its past tense. Example "Although details are still scarce at this point, a few key items have emerged which hint towards the programming MTV Canada will consist of. According to......" The channel has already launched so this sentence and others are out of date and need to updated since the channel has already launched!
- You are free to update it--BoyoJonesJr 00:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Naw, I don't really feel like updating it
[edit] MTV Live Article
Could someone add all the info on MTV Live in the MTV Canada article to its own article on MTV Live, there really isn't any need of all this specific info on this on specific show in the general article on MTV Canada, its an article on the channel not about the show.
[edit] Dispute
Doesn't include the history of the channel when it was with its owner before CTV. Ardenn 20:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- The original MTV Canada is under Razer, which is mentioned at the top of the article. If you're thinking of TalkTV, it's never been owned by anyone but CTV. Kirjtc2 20:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's a POV fork. This article should at least have some of the old history in it. Ardenn 20:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- "POV"? How? The channel now known as Razer and the channel formerly known as Talktv are distinct, separate CRTC-licensed channels, and that's no different now than when they launched. And, as this article (IMHO) makes clear, there is really no history and no similarities linking the past and present MTV Canadas other than name and maybe a few programs. In my view it's not unlike a network affiliation swap, and we don't (and shouldn't) include a past affiliate's history in the current affiliate's article in that case. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 23:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but "MTV Canada" as a whole has a history regardless of who has owned them in the past. Ardenn 00:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's a POV fork. This article should at least have some of the old history in it. Ardenn 20:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Masonic temple.jpg
Image:Masonic temple.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyedits
Here are a few copyedits that I will make and why:
- "Note that...." -- this is unnecessary. We do not have tto lead the reader. We provide the information, and lte the reader assess the importance. This phrase is among the Wikipedia's "words to avoid". See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Point_out.2C_note.2C_observe.
- "to launch" -- this article uses "launch as both a transitive and intransitive verb. The intransitive use is something new to the English language, is unnecessary and many would say incorrect. It is clearer to maintain consistency of use within the article by using this verb in only one way, so I have changed to to "to be lunched" I don't know why anyone would object to this.
- "Site" vs. "website". "Website" is clearer than "site"> I don't know why anyone would object to this.
- I have also corrected a spelling error or two.
- I replaced one of the may "due to"s with "because", which is more grammatically correct in this instance. Reverting my edits as a block will restore these errors. Please don't do that.
Ground Zero | t 11:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
