Talk:American Broadcasting Company/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Questions from 2002-2003

I'm unhappy with the page as it currently is. There are literally pages of info on a corporate merger (which never actually took place), and little info on, say, company history (outside of one planned merger). Nothing is mentioned of ABC's ratings through the years, what programs were offered, corporate information, etc, etc.

Right now, the article is dominated by a 1,100 word POV essay. Stuff like:

"accusatory and nasty tone" "The Commission majority was not impressed by ITT's dishonesty, manipulation of the press..."

doesn't belong in this article.

Frankly, much of the ITT stuff could be edited out, as this article concerns ABC, not ITT, a company which did not merge with ABC.

--Firsfron 01:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done, and done. I reduced the ITT mention to all of two short paragraphs, combined that section into a common 1960s section, and shorted the bits about Roone Arledge (that sort of thing belongs in his personal article, not here IMO). There's also a start on a 1970s section (I can't believe there's all that blab about ITT and not one mention of Roots or Happy Days); there's no mention of Fred Silverman there yet because I wasn't sure where he fit in. -lee 09:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent start, Lee. Thanks for the contrib. Looks 100% better already! :)--Firsfron 03:30, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

will this page concentrate on ABC Radio or ABC TV?

Apparently, neither. It seems to be focusing on the corporate history, particularly mergers. If you know anything about ABC's radio or TV programming, please tell us all! :-) --Ed Poor

---

Are the references to American Broadcasting Corporation in this article factually incorrect? --Minesweeper 05:28, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

I'd say so. ABC was American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (or in some cases Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.) before its merger with Disney. -lee 10:03, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

explaining revert

The fact that this entity is owned by the Walt Disney Company is mentioned in the article and in the article's catigorization. Therefore, the additions to the see also section are unnecessary. Gentgeen 06:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article title

This is the only one of the 3 oldest North American television networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) that has an article by its full name rather than its initials, the reason being dis-ambiguation is needed. However, can anyone discuss ABC network as a logical article title?? Does that name have dis-ambiguation in its meaning?? 66.245.123.24 23:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are ABC networks in other countries, Australia, e.g., unless American Broadcasting Company is doing harm, it is probably best left. dml 01:35, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Verification of information

A new revision of the logo its scheduled for 2007.

Where did this information come from? This would be major TV news, since the ABC logo is one of the most recognized TV logos. A search came up empty.

It's merely that new Glossy version. ViperSnake151 12:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Overhaul of this article

I'm not sure how it happened, but somehow this article has lept from a discusion of ABC to a discussion of an incident which occurred in the 1960's. The ITT affair now dominates this article. I'd like to request that the ITT portions be deleted, shortened, or removed, as this 6 paragraph long section has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I'd rather see a discussion of ABC's programming throughout the years, etc.

Opposition to chapter title

The chapter about the absorption of Capital/ABC into Disney is named 'Merger with Disney'. The Walt Disney Company did not merge with Capital/ABC, Capital/ABC became a part of The Walt Disney Company. Can anyone think of a better name than this? Speedway, 19:23, 25 Jan 05

In today's world of finance, that distinction is really no longer meaningful. 18.26.0.18 21:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Technically, Disney and CapCities/ABC did merge. A new company was created and incorporated when the two companies combined, although the Disney name was kept.--Plainsong 02:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It's "companies" not "company"

The corporate name is still plural.

ABC

What about information relating to the Australia ABC?

Well, our ABC (I'm Australian, you see), does have its own article, and as I often relish in pointing out, the proper ABC (sorry, I'm getting carried away with this), that is, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (originally Australian Broadcasting Commission), was established in 1932, 11 years before the American one, so why isn't our's more well-known? Because the American one comes from the US, doesn't it? You just don't care whose feelings you hurt...

Cyvros, a bloody proud Australian

Parent company

NBC now has a parent company of NBC Universal and CBS now has a parent company of CBS Corporation. Any stories yet about the future of this network being part of a parent company called "ABC something"?? Georgia guy 02:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Daytime ("One Life to Live")

I edited the blurp about One Life to Live. It seems too POV to me. Yes, it was socially conscious, but it didn’t really make ABC daytime "a success" (like the previous passage stated). It actually got low/mediocre ratings in its early days. OLTL didn’t become a ratings winner until the early ‘80s. And why single it out from all the others when discussing the daytime lineup? It makes no sense.

Requested move

ABC (United States) → American Broadcasting Company – Page moved today by an inexperienced (and brand-new!) editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, including the idea that the title of the article about a company should generally be the actual name of the company. I left a message for the user, as have others who noticed some other strange page moves, but the damage has been done. Also causes many double redirects. Please fix Crumbsucker 11:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support - It's the companys name and there are thousands of pages which link to the proper name rather than here. -Ladybirdintheuk 15:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - This page was moved to "ABC (United States)" without consensus and without regard for the actual name of the company. People will search for "American Broadcasting Company", not "ABC (United States)". Ridiculous and harmful move which has caused countless double redirects, none of which were fixed by the editor who moved the page, despite the warning that such a move might cause double redirects. Judging from this user's talk page, he has been moving many controversial pages like this. I've temporarily removed the notice at the top of the article, because it makes no sense in the context of the current page, but will happily replace it when this article is moved back.--Firsfron of Ronchester 16:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Acronyms should always be expanded, except in very rare circumstances (i.e. SPAM), or where it has become part of a larger term (i.e. RCA connector). I would ask an admin to make this a "speedy move" since it was done improperly in the first place, and is apparently blocked by an intermediate move.  –radiojon 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll second Radiojon's request for a "speedy move": I just checked "What links here", and at least 3,000 pages now point to a double redirect page. :( --Firsfron of Ronchester 17:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support as per pretty much everyone else. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Fix a mistake, no harm done (not too much). --Dhartung | Talk 07:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Please show that the word name is still legally used. Georgia guy 16:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's required. It's certainly not called "ABC (United States)". According to the article, the formal name of the company that operates the network is American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. --Firsfron of Ronchester 16:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Disney Era

The 'Disney Era' section and the latter part of the 'Acquisition by Disney' sections are identicle. Should we delete one of those sections? 66.69.244.129 22:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Spelling and his contribution to ABC's success

Especially now with his recent passing, I am surprised that no mention is made of Aaron Spelling and his vast contribution to the fortunes of the network. At one point in time up to a third of the programs on air were from his stable: Charlie's Angels, The Love Boat, Beverly Hills 90210, Melrose Place, etc. etc. They even joked that ABC meant "Aaron's Broadcasting Company" :) -- Jalabi99 06:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Logos and Idents Gone!!!!!!!!!!!!

What happened to the logos and idents for ABC?

Response to Q. "What happened to the logos and idents for ABC" - Were there copyright issues involved in posting the older ABC logos? If not, was there suspected vandalism? Or someone affiliated with ABC removed/asked for removal of the logos? lwalt 18:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There is already an article about ABC logos see: American Broadcasting Company logos. AxG (talk) ^{m. xmas} 18:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

2004 Presidential Election

Anyone find that seciton a bit odd? I thought about maybe re-wording it, but I wasn't sure. It seems to critisie ABC for not providing 'equal coverage' to Dennis Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton, presumably compared to candiadtes such as Howard Dean and John Kerry. Since it is widely accepted that the three were 'vanity candidates' who had little to no chance of winning the nomination, isn't it logical for the network to focus more emphasis on more viable candidates who the public are more interested in? It happens every primary season on both sides, notice how Hillary and Obama are getting much more coverage than say, Mike Gravel, etc. --IvanKnight69 12:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Current schedule - problem

There is a new tag available to alert editors to cleanup schedules, which is {{schedule}}. I could tag the article because it does have a current schedule for ABC, but I would rather bring it up here first, to see if consensus can be met. As people may be aware, current TV schedules are unencyclopedic as per WP:NOT#DIR, can be difficult to be kept up to date and therefore redundant to TV Guides, which are updated fairly quickly. They can also be original research and if copied and pasted from an external source, a copyright violation. If you believe the WP:NOT policy on schedules is wrong, you should discuss it there. --tgheretford (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the points I've made in the past regarding the schedules is that the specific times should be kept out, as they slip the descriptive information from an encyclopedic measure into a TV Guide-like measure, which indeed is a violation of WP:NOT. --Mhking 21:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason I made the schedules was to highlight the types of shows the network is airing. In my opinion, it is best represented in a day and time format with the colors, but anything outside the box (besides late night and maybe hiatus shows) is not needed. Unfortunately, people feel the need to add every premiere that is coming up, which should not happen on Wikipedia. The only way to police that is to just delete it any time it is added, which I have been trying to do to a certain extent. bmitchelf•T•F 05:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The schedule coloring seems kinda painful to me. Take a look at this schedule from another article. You might want to adopt (or adapt) it. Alsee (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The newest version of the ABC logo

I've added the current ABC logo. The one in use was the old one. The new one is, for a lack of a better term, "shinier" than previous incarnations. Jason.cinema 03:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To the person who reverted ABC's logo on the article page back to the previous one, please take a look at ABC.com. The network is using the "shinier" logo and has been for some time now, thus it's the current ABC logo. Jason.cinema 07:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ABClogo.jpg

Image:ABClogo.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 Wikipedia articles 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.

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 15:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A fair use rationale has been added. Jason.cinema 02:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The constant misuse of the old ABC logo

To those who keep reverting ABC's new logo to the old one, please stop. One only has to go to ABC.com to notice that the network is no longer using the plain logo, but are using the "shinier" one, and have been for some time. I'll leave this in the hands of the editors, but I always thought accuracy and transparency were paramount virtues to be had. Please stop reverting this page's logo to the old ABC logo.

Just For Laughs

ABC has had a commecial for maybe 3 weeks for what they call a new series I checked the article but all I found was a festival of sorts. Just For Laughs [[User:The New Mikemoral|<font color="red">The New</font> [[User Talk:The New Mikemoral|Mikemoral</font>]]]] 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC) ABC mentioned wikipedia, I got a laugh, too. It was about people supporting their candidate in wikipedia! Fineday 05:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that in some of the promos for this show, that it was taped in MONTREAL!!!...especially after you see a fleeting pass of a Canada Post postal service truck in the background in the downtown area, and a police car where you don't instantly recognize the agency(turns out it's the Surete du Quebec[or was it?])...

Just thought you should know, but just in case, can this be verified so I don't get accused of being STUPID?...thanks,Baldwin91006 02:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaker of trailers

Do you know who’s the speaker of the trailers? I didn’t find any information here. Thanks! --88.68.199.204 (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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) 01:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thursdays from 8-9

Currently the article says that on Thursdays, from 8PM-9PM, episodes of Ugly Betty are aired. However, due to the strike, for the last few weeks and for the next several weeks indefinitely, Lost episodes have been aired in that timeslot (the previous week's episode) followed by a new episode from 9PM-10PM. Should this be changed? ShadowUltra (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Do you mind if I delete this section because it is really only a one-time question? -- bmitchelf•T•F 19:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Time zone

Prime time:

"All times are Eastern and Pacific (subtract one hour for Central and Mountain time)."

I am not American nor English-speaker and there's one time zone in my country. Can someone explain me how can a given time (for instance 8pm) can be at the same time in 2 time zones (ET/PT) ? Actually I don't understand when a network says one program is going to be at 8pm ET/PT... If one can explain to me ? It looks there's no article about that ! Thanks. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It means that the same show is played at that certain time in each time zone, so something that is on at 8:00 in ET and PT will be played three hours later in PT, when it turns to 8:00, since it is three hours behind ET. -- bmitchelf•T•F 22:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I better understand why some times are given with only one time zone, for live shows... ("Academy Awards at 7pm ET"). But what about shows with a "c" added at the end ? On NBC.com, I can see that "Quarterlife will premiere tomorrow at 10/9c." What it means ? In fact, I think Wikipedia needs an article among its 2-million, about The way time zones are written for general comprehension in the media of countries with multiple time zones, especially USA... because there are much more stupid things than that on it! Thanks. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh no you didn't! That Manning pass to Tyree was excellent and exciting! Anyway, this is probably a topic that should be broght up somewhere else if you want that article made, but I will answer your question. When it says 10/9c, the first number responds to the airing in the more populous Eastern and Pacific time zones and second number with the "c" refers to when it will air in the Central and Mountain time zones, or the middle of the country. -- bmitchelf•T•F 16:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

True that thit Superbowl moment was breathtaking, but I wouldn't create an article for that, there are many great TV/sports moments that happenned before the "WP reflex". Thanks for your answer, I couldn't guess ! 82.240.207.81 (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

E

We are all hackers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.118.139 (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:ABC1 logo.png

The image File:ABC1 logo.png 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. --05:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

History Rewrite?

The entire history section, to me, reads like a novel: no references, no notes, and a lot of "actions phrases" are sprinkled around the various paragraphs. While it certainly makes for an interesting read, it doesn't seem to make for a very factual/encyclopedic one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.222.177 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Stephen McPherson

McPherson is an American television executive.

As president of ABC Entertainment since April 2004, McPherson has been the driving force behind the network's primetime comeback including drama, alternative, development and marketing to support and deliver that content.

Prior to joining ABC, he was president of Touchstone Television. During his tenure at Touchstone, McPherson developed several other successful series for the network, including "Alias," "8 Simple Rules," "According to Jim," "My Wife and Kids," "Hope & Faith," "Less than Perfect," "Once and Again" and "The Job." He and his team also developed the successful "CSI" drama franchise and the award-winning alternative series "The Amazing Race" for CBS, as well as the critically acclaimed comedy, "Scrubs," and "Monk," which became a hit for the USA Network. He originally joined Touchstone as an executive vice president of the studio.

Prior to joining Touchstone Television, McPherson was vice president, Primetime Series at NBC, where he oversaw the development and production of such shows as "NewsRadio" and "Just Shoot Me." Before joining NBC, he was senior vice president, Creative Affairs of ABC Productions, where he supervised both comedy and drama series, including "My So Called Life" and "The Commish." He also served as director, Current Programming for FOX, where he helped launch "Martin" and "The Ben Stiller Show." He began his industry career as director of Development for Witt-Thomas-Harris Productions.

McPherson has been recognized for his achievements and honored with several awards, including the Directors Guild of America's 2005 Diversity Award, honoring his outstanding commitment to and leadership in the hiring of women and minorities in DGA categories. This is only the fourth time that the Award has been bestowed. He also received the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Committee on Diversity's first Televisionary Award in recognition of his commitment to diversity both on-screen and behind the scenes. He received the Executive of the Year Award from the Caucus for Television Producers, Writers & Directors for his contribution to the industry. He was also named the 2006 Television Showman of the Year at the International Cinematographers Guild 43rd Annual Publicists Awards in March, in recognition of his outstanding stewardship of the network in 2005.

McPherson's efforts extend beyond the television industry. In addition to being honored by the Los Angeles Free Clinic at its Annual Dinner Gala in 2005, he is also an active member of its board.

Person in charge

• Who is the person responsible for shows like Ugly Betty, Desperate Housewives, etc.? --Kid Sonic (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• • America Ferrera for Ugly Betty, Eva Langoria for Desperate Housewives :D--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference needed

Hello, I a bit disappointed by the following paragraphe :

During the hearings, Woods said the new network would not sell airtime to the American Federation of Labor. Noble evaded questioning on similar points by hiding behind the NAB code. Frustrated, the chairman advised Noble to do some rethinking. Apparently he did, and the sale closed on October 12, 1943.

What's the source of this information, the reason of this request from the FCC and the consequence for ABC ? Also the entire article is really lacking from source. At least one per paragraphe for the history section or better, one per sentence/fact --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 09:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

wipeout

When reality shows are discussed there is no mention of wipeout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.80.51 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wipeout is a game show (albeit a physical one), not a reality show, as there's no ongoing contestants, and each episode is a standalone competition. So the lack of mention is appropriate. oknazevad (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is ABC located

• What is the address of the ABC network? --Kid Sonic (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is their mailing address taken from their website:

ABC, Inc.

500 S. Buena Vista Street

Burbank, CA 91521-4551

Which is, I believe, part of the Disney Studios. Their New York studios are at 77 W 66th St, not counting the Times Square Studio, which they use these days. oknazevad (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

ABC in the 1970's = Sports Coverage!

This article totally "missed the bus" when it comes to ABC sports in the 70's. Monday Night Football was the most inovative TV creation of the decade. ABC also moved into the major league baseball broadcasting market during the 70's, with Monday Night Baseball games that featured guest announcers such as Dizzy Dean, Bob Ueker, and host of other celebrities from the entertainment world. ABC cameras were at Yankee Stadium when Chris Chambliss hit his solo home run in game 5 of the '76' ALCS, that won the pennant for the Yankees. The following year, ABC covered Reggie Jackson's three home run performance in game 5 of the '77' world series. ABC's wide world of Sports covered the historically tragic 72 Olympics in Munich, and the 1976 Olympics in Montreal. Howard Cosell's relationship with Muhamed Ali fueled its' coverage of professional boxing in all weight classes. Also it was ABC who covered the NBA until CBS took over in the mid to late 70's. ABC even hosted a one on one tournament featuring the NBA's best players. It was basketball's answer to the home run derby. The network employed three of the most recognizable play by play voices in all of sports coverage. Howard Cosell, Keith Jackson, and Al Michaels. I feel this should have been mentioned in the article, as this represents a significant period in the network's history, in which an outstanding body of work was created. 167.206.169.66 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious section headings

The titles used for section headings need to be made more neutral and should be better supported by reliable sources. 121a0012 (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (1)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Not moved Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

---

American Broadcasting Company → ABC (U.S. TV channel) – The channel is almost never advertised or referred to as American Broadcasting Company. 68.44.179.54 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: While it is true that the network (not channel; it's on a different channel in each city) is rarely referred to by anything other that the initialism, "ABC" is such a common term that using the full name is a natural, easy disambiguation. (Though, it may correctly be the plural "companies".) oknazevad (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional Comment The proposed title would make a good redirect, though. oknazevad (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: If it was the only notable TV network called "ABC", I'd support a move to ABC (TV network), but since it is still officially named "American Broadcasting Company" (unlike CBS for example, which has dropped all corporate ties to "Columbia Broadcasting System"), I think the current title works much better as an easy natural-flowing disambiguation than using three acronyms one after the other (ABC, U.S., TV). — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Again, it's inaccurate to say its "TV Channel" when it's a TV network. Furthermore, ABC may not be advertising or is being commonly referred to as the "American Broadcasting Company" in 2012, but that has not always been the case.[2][3] Even sites like MSNBC still have a "American Broadcasting Company on MSNBC" page. And it still is officially named as such, so I'd prefer to keep it as per option #1 of WP:NCDAB - "When there is another term or more complete name that is equally clear and is unambiguous, that may be used". Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Obviously it can't be ABC, because that's ambiguous. However, using the full name is a far more natural form of disambiguation than adding "U.S. TV channel" in parentheses. Jenks24 (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – the name is better than the ambiguous acronym with disambiguator. And it's not a channel. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this completely ignores the existence of the radio network. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2)

The following discussion is an archived 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: KEEP. non-admin early closing due to WP:SNOW. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Tiggerjay (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

---

American Broadcasting Company → ABC (U.S. TV network) – Per WP:COMMONNAME. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The last move request, only 9 months ago, was overwhelmingly opposed. Of course it is known as ABC more commonly than American Broadcasting Company but it's not common name for ABC. WP:NATURAL states that If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name. Seeing as American Broadcasting Company is natural disambiguation then I oppose this move. Zarcadia (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Outside the United States, ABC isn't a WP:COMMONNAME but rather the first 3 alphabets of English -A1candidate (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Due to my growing experience on article titles and policies, parenthetical disambiguation can be used ONLY if no natural disambiguation is available or officially suitable. In this case, ABC is ABC, and ABC is also an acronym for American-born Chinese. Unlike NBC, spelling out full names is preferred. This resembles a case of Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, of which Apu (The Simpsons) is a redirect page rather than a current title. --George Ho (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ABC is not simply a television channel, it is company with a TV network (which is composed of multiple TV stations, and more than one TV channel), there's also the radio network, the ABC family of cable channels. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, just like I did last tiem, and for the same reasons. This is a natural diambiguation.oknazevad (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per prior nom Tiggerjay (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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.

New slogan?

Where is the source for the new slogan? Since when it's "Anytime. Anywhere. ABC."? Isn't it "Start Here"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexcho (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The new logo

So, which color variant should we use in the article? The yellow one seems to be the primary one for the entertainment-oriented outlets, but they also got a more normal looking copper blue one, which would be a better choice here. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move October 2014

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closed as Withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closer) oknazevad (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

American Broadcasting Company → ABC (U.S. broadcast network) – Everyone is familiar with the network as ABC. While I don't object to the article being known by its current title since it is ABC's official name, other networks like NBC and CBS (the latter now being an orphan initialism) go to NBC and CBS. I also suggest having "U.S. broadcast network" in parenthesis since an existing ABC network in Australia as well as to honor ABC's legacy in radio as well as television. Jgera5 (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Not a bad idea. However, I would move to ABC (U.S. TV network) or ABC (US TV network) --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 18:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "TV" is a bad idea. There's also the ABC Radio Network that this article covers. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While it is true that the network is rarely referred to by anything other that the initialism, "ABC" is such a common term that using the full name is a natural, easy disambiguation. The proposed title should be a redirect, though. (Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself? Oh, wait, this is substatially similar to the two already-proposed-and-rejected moves above.) oknazevad (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - It was proposed in 2012 (under slightly different disambiguation). It was majorly rejected once (or twice). This time, the titling matters to countries whose citizens speak predominantly English, like Canadians, British, New Zealanders, and Australians. As I am very sure, a non-US reader can spell out the whole company name instead of a proposed parenthetical disambiguation. Otherwise, s/he may go to ABC (disambiguation), a redirect to ABC. --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. We will always need to distinguish the two major television networks commonly known as "ABC", and ABC itself will always be a disambiguation page. We might as well use natural disambiguation, which most people will figure out, rather than invented parenthetical titles that they won't. The dabpage will catch the rest of the people looking for this network. D. Dave Davidson (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support Clear and obviously the overwhelming primary name. Illogical to have this page differ from the standards at NBC, CBS, or the BBC. This is not like the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which has the full name in it's logo, for example. Many US viewers don't even know the full network name. The parent company's name of Disney–ABC Television Group is further indication of the overwhelming use of the term ABC.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:NCDAB, natural disambiguation is generally preferred over parenthetical disambiguation, similar to the Fox Broadcasting Company article. This is especially true for a worldwide readership where there are multiple meanings to "ABC" with equal worldwide significance. Wikipedia is not solely used by Americans. Using "U.S. broadcast network" in the title may also be problematic and unclear because a broadcast network, as that article currently says, may be "either a television network or a radio network". Furthermore, making comparisons to NBC, CBS and the BBC are irrelevant WP:OSE arguments because those three instead pass the WP:ACRONYMTITLE test where each one "is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". That has not been the case with "ABC" because the U.S. network has equal worldwide significance with the Australian one. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:UCRN and search on: ("ABC" OR "American Broadcasting Company") AND broadcaster. and as per WP:CRITERIA consistency: BBC, JTBC, LBC, NBC, ABC News, Disney–ABC Television Group, ABC Development Corporation (this last one is a different ABC). I presume some other broadcast corporations are not abbreviated partly for lack of familiarity but there are two methods of possible disambiguation. ABC is the most familiar form and the parenthesis provides approptiate disambiguation.

Prefer: ABC (US TV network) as per WP:Concise and The Family Channel (US TV network) etc. and site:https://en.wikipedia.org/ US OR "U.S." OR UK OR "U.K." There is no problem regarding a previous ABC radio interest as that is now defunct. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• • This ABC is not just a TV network article, it also covers the history, such as when it began as a radio network. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I didn't realize there were other discussions about changing the article title beforehand (although unlike this one, there were consensus "Oppose"), but with that said, the comparison to that with Fox is apples and oranges, as people are going to know if it's Fox they are looking for. I don't object to the current title at all, as it is ABC's official name (Although has ABC even used "American Broadcasting Company" on any on-air ads under Disney ownership? I last recall seeing it on TV in the mid-1990s just before Disney took over.), but a lot of people know ABC as ABC. Here in the US, people know BBC as BBC, not British Broadcasting Corporation. Also, regardless of whether or not the article keeps its current name or moved to my proposed title, I do oppose it being moved to any article that has the title "ABC (U.S. TV network)" or anything else with "TV" in it, as ABC until relatively recently did have a radio presence and is descended from the Blue Network. Since the article covers both radio and TV, the article's name should either be "ABC (U.S. broadcast network)" or left as-is. Jgera5 (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If that is your reason to not have any parenthetical disambiguation with "TV" in it, then "U.S. broadcast network" should not be used either. Since the article covers both radio and TV, there are then really two broadcast networks described on the page. A more accurate parenthetical disambiguation would thus be "ABC (U.S. broadcast networks)" with an 's' on the end. Of course, that would probably lead to more confusion. Since neither of these proposals are satisfactory, the current natural disambiguation title of "American Broadcasting Company" should be kept. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Here the natural disambiguation is a much better choice than the complex parenthetical disambiguation. kennethaw88 • talk 04:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Suggestion - "U.S. TV channel"? Unreal7 (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  That is still unsatisfactory and inaccurate. It is a TV network, not merely a TV channel. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I'm gonna have this nomination withdrawn. Since people who support the move insist that "TV" be put into the parenthesis even though ABC has been more than a TV network due to its radio history, the best title at the time being is the current one. Jgera5 (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move - December 2014

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. (non-admin closure) -- Calidum 00:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

---

American Broadcasting Company → ABC (U.S. TV network) – The full name is no longer used anymore, just make it "ABC". 186.31.27.214 (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose this clearly leaves out half the history of the company. It has also been a RADIO NETWORK, so that is not a TV network. Also per Requested move (1) and (2) previously that used ABC TV based names and ignoring the radio history. Any disambiguator that only uses "TV" rescopes the article, and therefore is misleading as it is the wrong scope. This article is not about only the TV history. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because we should prefer natural disambiguation over artificial disambiguation, and ought to treat the American and Australian ABCs equally, plus all of the other reasons for opposition in the three previous moves. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment A search on the main site at site:abc.go.com gives a first two result as:

• ABC TV Network - Shows, Episodes, Schedules - ABC.com
  

abc.go.com/

• ABC TV Shows, Specials & Movies - ABC.com
  

abc.go.com/shows

Would it be possible to use: ABC, U.S. TV network or similar? PS, I'm just a Brit messing with U.S.ian stuff here. GregKaye ✍♪ 10:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you proposing to split the article in two? Corporate history and TV network history in separate articles? This entity originated as a RADIO network, and ran one for most of its history. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm repeating what I wrote in October's discussion: Per WP:NCDAB, natural disambiguation is generally preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. This is especially true for a worldwide readership where there are multiple meanings to "ABC" with equal worldwide significance. Wikipedia is not solely used by Americans. Also, using "U.S. TV network" in the title may also be problematic because this company use to be both in radio and TV for several decades. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Suggestion ABC (U.S. company) --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 00:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That would be bad. There are many companies called ABC in the U.S., per ABC (disambiguation) ; that title should redirect to the disambiguation page. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Other Suggestion ABC (U.S. broadcast company) --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 01:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, WP:NATURAL etc. Red Slash 08:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose ABC is more than just a TV network, It's also a radio station as well. Disney owns ABC and official calls it the "American Broadcasting Company". It also has a division called "Disney–ABC Television Group". CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755
• Oppose per Zzyzx11, RedSlash, others. --IJBall (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As others have mentioned, the proposed move to TV Network would fail to consider the radio content. Additionally, it gives unfair weight to the American ABC over the Australian ABC (redundant, I realize). I eat BC Fish (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Requested move 1 February 2015

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 - Seeing as this is the fifth request and the answer's been the same for the last 4 requests - I suggest further RMs here are simply speedy closed or deleted!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

---

American Broadcasting Company → ABC (broadcaster) – No one refers to ABC as the American Broadcasting Company. Even as a radio station no one did then. I think that this article should be moved to ABC (broadcaster) so that there is no argument over it being a radio station before. 100.37.21.54 (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose ambiguous disambiguation, regionalism; Did you read the previous discussions? There's an ABC in Australia that is a broadcaster. The proposed title should redirect to the disambigation page. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The best options are ABC (U.S. broadcast company) or stay with the current name. I am sure that the current title will remain. --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 04:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – as per above. We just did this. Can people please wait a few months before dragging us through this process that just failed, like, days ago?! (Does this qualify it for a speedy close?!...) --IJBall (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Again repeating myself: Per WP:NCDAB, natural disambiguation is generally preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. This is especially true for a worldwide readership where there are multiple meanings to "ABC" with equal worldwide significance. This includes the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support anything to acknowledge the clear reality presented by the nom. People don't regularly call it "American Broadcasting Company" and this does not quantify with common name where it matters. So what if ABC (broadcaster) is not the ideal name. If a better option can be chosen then another move can be made. I might even suggest ABC (American Broadcasting Company). GregKaye 14:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Because this is not the US Wikipedia, it is the Englishlanguage Wikipedia. Clear US-bias in the name proposed. Furhter fails WP:PRECISE because multiple broadcasters called ABC, so is insufficient to identify the topic. Your own suggestion fails WP:CONCISE since it is longer than the current title for no obvious benefit -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NATDIS for at least the fifth time. No matter what the proposed title is utterly unacceptable as there are many broadcasters named ABC, so it is utterly ambiguous. oknazevad (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose & Speedy Close - ABC is more than just a broadcaster. The American Broadcasting Company also does radio and has a joined partnership with The Walt Disney Company called Disney-ABC Television Group. Also, your proposed name; "ABC (broadcaster)" could refer to the Australian Broadcasting Company. We just voted to oppose, so why open another proposal? CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

---

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.

Slogans

Do ALL of the slogans really need to be listed in the infobox? Other articles like NBC and CBS do not have them listed except the current one. Plus, they do not have reliable sources to back them up. I had thought about removing them, but figured I would ask before doing so to see other users opinions. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 13:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Nuke em as unsourced. oknazevad (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and taking care of that! Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 14:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Link to ABC (Australia)

I was thinking maybe put a 'Were you looking for ABC (Australia)' Or, Read Also: ABC (Australia) at the start and visa versa. Just a suggestion.

KhevaKins (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on American Broadcasting Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100214203038/http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/feature?section=resources/inside_station/station_info&id=5769141 to http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/feature?section=resources/inside_station/station_info&id=5769141
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140426155656/http://www.zap2it.com/news/la-fi-ct-abc19-2009jun19,0,1709446.story to http://www.zap2it.com/news/la-fi-ct-abc19-2009jun19,0,1709446.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110515064602/http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lifestyle/abc-programming-chief-mcpherson-abruptly-resigns-99432619.html to http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lifestyle/abc-programming-chief-mcpherson-abruptly-resigns-99432619.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the multiple attempts at trying to get the pagename changed...

It's actually rather funny looking at past attempts, partly because the guidelines Wikipedia has in place seem to result in incorrect names/brandings being used for certain articles here & there. The fact that Wikipedia has a guideline that would prefer American Broadcasting Company over something like, say, ABC (U.S. broadcast network) for example, is ridiculous, as anytime someone over here in the States watches TV & there's a promo for a show on ABC, the promo isn't going to refer to the network by saying "Catch the season premiere of (name of show), Sunday night at 8, only on American Broadcasting Company". I would assume there were promos like that during the network's early years (because people back then wouldn't have known that ABC was a reference to the television network), but nowadays, a promo for something on ABC would go something like "Catch the season premiere of (name of show), Sunday night at 8, only on ABC", as people nowadays here in the States know "ABC" refers to the TV network.

And, for those making the argument about TV networks in other countries whose initialism is also "ABC" (the reason, or in my opinion, excuse, for having the pagename as American Broadcasting Company)..... what about TV networks in other countries whose initialism is also "NBC"? "CBS"? As a result, should the articles for the US networks then be moved to National Broadcasting Company (for NBC) & Columbia Broadcasting System (for CBS) so as to distinguish them from foreign networks with that same initialism? 76.235.248.47 (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 November 2015

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. Consensus is against moving. Also, this (or other variants) has proposed 3 times in the past year with the same result of Not Moved, so consensus is clear to keep this article at the current title. Nominators need to Get over it. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

---

American Broadcasting Company → ABC (U.S. broadcast network) – Okay, this is seriously getting annoying. Who the hell refers to ABC as "American Broadcasting Company"? All the other ABC related articles are with their abbreviations, for example, Disney-ABC Television and ABC Family. So why should we be super specific with the channel that's just called ABC? I do respect that it is a former radio station, hence the title being a U.S. broadcast network. But since no one refers to ABC by its full name, it deserves to be where it belongs. 2604:2000:5269:8700:D134:8852:686A:8714 (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It still considers itself American Broadcasting Company. It has not dropped it's name like CBS with Columbia Broadcasting System. As this is the case, it should stay as is. So I Oppose such request. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose American Broadcasting Company remains the company's official full name. There are multiple "ABC" organizations throughout the world, and it's already tough enough DAB'ing it as an initialism as-is; why complicated it further with parentheses and periods? This is a solution without any problem to solve; with American Broadcasting Company, you know you're getting the article about the American ABC network. Nate • (chatter) 08:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – This is what is called WP:NATURAL disambiguation. Nautral disambiguation is always preferred to parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester — ☎ 13:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous discussions. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 14:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per other opposers. Natural disambiguation is preferred. oknazevad (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Natural disambiguation is preferred, and in any case lengthy unguessable disambiguation phrases are not preferred. Also, there seem to have been at least five previous move requests, none of which succeeded; this one offers nothing that was not raised previously, so it ought not to succeed either. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with natural disambiguation. Australian Broadcasting Corporation is at its full name. Disney-ABC Television Group and ABC Family are at their common and trade names. ABC Family is a part of or is ABC Family Worldwide, Inc. thus "American Broadcasting Company" is not a part of its name but referred to by the initials. Disney-ABC Television Group's legal name is ABC, Inc. and some times is considered the "network" due to American Broadcasting Company being its most visible unit, thus creating more complication with the proposed renaming. ABC in Disney-ABC Television Group is also a reference to "American Broadcasting Company" but not spelled out like ABC Family. Spshu (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Propose moratorium

No more RM discussions for one year. Although involved, the consensus unanimously supported one-year moratorium. I'll ask an extension next year. --George Ho (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After numerous challenges to the current title, the article is move-protected. However, this doesn't prevent more RMs in the future. Shall we take a break from RMs for... how long do you prefer? --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean — don't allow any RMs for this page for a certain amount of time? Doesn't sound like a bad idea. How about a year? Eman235/talk 03:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Clear consensus was reached to not move the page. I would support a one year RM "block" assuming nothing significant changes with ABC during that time frame. Meatsgains (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Four unsuccessful move attempts in the past fourteen months? A year's moratorium on RMs seems good. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Given the number of request in a years time, I would prefer two years, but will accept atleast a one year. Spshu (talk) 19:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we can go ahead and close this RfC early. Meatsgains (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Broadcasting Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130731132652/http://www.h-net.org/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHprint/v012/ to http://www.h-net.org/~business/bhcweb/publications/BEHprint/v012/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Potential page split

I realize that ABC is both a television and radio station, and I noticed that the article is pretty extensive, so should we split the articles into one for a television station and for a radio station? 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:30A3:6FD8:E319:BE2 (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant information

I challenge "Most Canadians have access to at least one U.S.-based ABC affiliate, either over-the-air (in areas located within proximity to the Canada–United States border) or through a cable, satellite or IPTV provider, although most ABC programs are subject to simultaneous substitution regulations imposed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that allow pay television providers to replace an American station's signal with the feed of a Canadian broadcaster to protect domestic programming rights and advertising revenue." as relevant to the article on an American domestic television network? It has no sources, and is about a foreign country, it should be either sourced or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.231.252 (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Restored, do not remove; the CRTC oversees the carriage of all over-the-air signals and can assert simultaneous substitution of advertising to protect Canadian advertisers on stations outside Canada, and yeah...radio waves aren't usually stopped by an imaginary construct like a national border. Next time you want to remove something, take some time to search around for basic known information and use common sense. Nate • (chatter) 00:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on American Broadcasting Company. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110921174047/http://amedia.disney.go.com/investorrelations/factbook_2006.pdf to http://amedia.disney.go.com/investorrelations/factbook_2006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007161608/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/miss-america-heads-back-atlantic-city-nj-0 to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/miss-america-heads-back-atlantic-city-nj-0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130819224905/http://www.loyalkaspar.com/application/project/abcrebrand/ to http://www.loyalkaspar.com/application/project/abcrebrand/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)