Talk:Fox Broadcasting Company/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article should not take precedence

Why when I searched for "Fox" did this article come up and the other uses of the word get relegated to the disambiguation page? The animal "fox" is the primary meaning of this word and a search of "fox" should be directed to the article devoted to the animal. This article should go to the disambiguation page, as it is a secondary meaning of the term.--209.115.235.79 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The animal comes up with I type "fox" and "Fox". Did you type "FOX", for example? Lambertman 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reputation

Surely there is room to mention the reputation of the FOX Network in this article. In its relatively short history (compared to the other three major networks) it has established itself as a well-known purveyor of controversial shows designed to shock some and appeal to, well, the "lowest common denominator." With the recent boom of "reality" TV, FOX's reputation for "shock" has become even more notable.

This can be said in a more NPOV manner but the reputation is real; I'm not just railing against FOX here. Indeed, it might be interesting to compare the "conservative" FOX News Channel with the "salacious" FOX Channel. --Feitclub 01:18, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

• • Agreed. :)--Firsfron 18:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that FOX takes chances and has taken advantage of niches. FOX News bucks what some would call "liberal media bias" and carved out a segment among conservatives. On the other hand, FOX network has taken chances on programming, which led to some fantastic success stories (The Simpsons, 24, Married with Children) and some disasterous failures. In both cases, they made themselves "different" than the other three networks. Indeed, it isn't a bad idea for a network that still has less original programming than the other three (due to their 10:00 news hour). With FOX, I think you can be assured of something different, and it isn't always the kind of shows. 24 went for a real-time thriller, then was put into "uninterrupted" season mode, starting in January and not taking a week off. In contrast, Prison Break started in August, is running for 13 episodes, then giving a 6 month cliffhanger ending from the end of November until resumption in May with the final 9 episodes. Jclinard 06:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Spelling: "FOX" or "Fox"

How is "FOX" or "Fox" spelled? With lowercase or with uppercase letters?

Either way is correct. Georgia guy 21:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well the header on their website says "'FOX' Broadcasting Company," and all mentions of the brand on the site say "FOX", So I would say that FOX is the correct way. --24.250.56.30 (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

The section of criticism, particularly the sports part, seem to be shown in an anti-Fox sense. Not that I disagree, but we shouldn't be putting people or companies down here... CrazyC83 22:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I have edited the article to NPOV. I deleted the sports section because there is no way of stating that without a POV. non_NPOV tag removed. Flying Canuck 03:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but what about something relating to the irritating way Fox pre-empts beloved programming blocks with sports?

They've been doing that for years, not just in 2005. Like the way the Treehouse of Horror special ends up airing in November, because of World Series coverage. --Madchester 08:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Good job on the NPOV article on sports criticism. It's a lot better than what I did ;) --UberSkelator 05:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Quick question — Why is much of this section in the article in bold and italics? It seems it would be distracting to the casual reader. ArkansasTraveler 22:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it was just somebody's formatting mistake. I fixed it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of FOX's presentation of many of their shows may be accurate to differing degrees, but the paragraph is given away as POV by the statement "misrepresentation of the characters' personalities." Argument over a representation of character traits can be only POV, by definition. --4.225.19.197 23:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

How come the criticism section talks about the Parent's Television Council's complaints of the immorality of shows, but does not mention that they declared FOX the most anti-religious network of 2006. This is a change for FOX and I think it is worth mentioning. Here is a story about it http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117955772.html?categoryid=14&cs=1&nid=2562

Foxes political biasism toward the Republican party should be highlighted in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.30.184 (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

FBC

I remember watching the premiere episode of Joan Rivers' show on the premiere date and the network ID was given, in a large logo before the start of the program, as FBC, *not* Fox. As I didn't have means to record this, I can't back up what I say, alas. Perhaps this only last 1 night, as the network was very quickly re-titled Fox, but it did announce itself as FBC at the beginning.

You're right. It was "FBC" on-air until they started the Sunday prime-time lineup. Lambertman 14:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Question: Where it says availability is says: National; also distributed in Canada, Mexico and certain other North American countries. Isn't Canada, the US and Mexico all of North America? Should it be change to South America? I know that they show it in Argentina. I won't change it until someone else agrees. Gadig 22:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess that Central America and Caribbean nations are also considered to be "North America." 69.181.156.67 05:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FOX Sports/Malcolm in the Middle

Is this really required? Kind of POV, plus, if at all, should be at Malcolm in the Middle. 68.215.48.67 17:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because it just seemed like an anti-Fox diatribe by a Malcolm fan, even though I did make an adjustment at first. ErikNY 14:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

List of shows cancelled on Fox?

Should there be a list of shows that was cancelled? Shows seem to come and go a LOT on Fox, and it would be nice to see a list of cancelled shows, as per the Family Guy season premiere of one of the previous seasons. Here's the transcript: http://www.familyguyfreak.com/

Peter Griffin: Everybody I've got bad news. We've been cancelled.

Lois Griffin: Oh no Peter! How could they do that?

Peter Griffin: Well unfortuantely Lois, there's just no more room on the schedule. We just gotta accept the fact that FOX has to make room for terrific shows like Dark Angel, Titus, Undeclared, Action, That 80's Show, Wonder Falls, Fast Lane, Andy Richter Controls The Universe, Skin, Girl's Club, Cracking Up, The Pitts, Firefly, Get Real, Freaky Links, Wanda At Large, Costello, The Lone Gunman, A Minute with Stan Hooper, Normal Ohio, Pasadena, Harsh Realm, Keen Eddy, The Street, American Embassy, Cedric The Entertainer, The Tick, Louie, And Greg The Bunny....

Lois Griffin: Is there no hope?

Peter Griffin: Well I suppose if ALL those shows go down the tubes we might have a shot.

I was just thinking this. It would be massive. Forgot about the Family Guy bit though.--Theeonlyjbk (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually came to the article looking for a list of shows they cancelled. Especially ones cancelled abruptly. Plenty of critics have commented on this (someone into movies maybe could dig up the review of Serenity where the critic commented that it was based on a show "so good Fox cancelled it." --GaidinBDJ (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sports Coverage

What's the point of this statement: "While Fox does air sports programming, unlike ABC, NBC and CBS, Fox rarely airs sports programming (except during the NFC Playoffs) on both Saturdays and Sundays and they do not air sports all afternoon on weekends given the limited amount of sports programming Fox carries (which is limited to NFL games from the NFC conference, NASCAR races and Major League Baseball). Though in retrospect, the Big Three does not air sports programming all afternoon on weekends either on some dates. In some cases, ABC does not air sports programming at all on some Saturdays or Sundays."

It has so many exeptions that it is entirely pointless.--Nick Dillinger 08:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Things that need to go

Here are the edits I'm planning. Discuss away...

1) Re: opening paragraph listing major stars FOX gave their start to: every network has featured someone on one of their shows that later became hugely famous (NBC - Tom Hanks on "Bosom Buddies"; ABC - Jerry Seinfeld on "Benson", et al.). And those folks probably appeared elsewhere as well. There's no need to credit a network with a list of people who appeared on their shows, especially when said shows are most often produced and cast by a third party. (There's a similar bit on The WB's page that needs to go, too.)

2) "FOX cancels shows." OK, Fox does have an itchy trigger finger, but all the networks have had the same predilections the last few years as competition has heated up from each other and from cable. I can see listing the ones that have brought the largest outcries - Firefly, Tru Calling, Dark Angel and Wonderfalls - but beyond that, this is simply people seeing a chance to mourn their favorite shows. (I'd note that FOX hasn't had higher ratings on Friday night than they had with "Greed", but we don't even need THAT in the main article.) Not to mention, some of these shows aired for more than a full season, which makes the complaints even more ridiculous. "Boston Public"?!? Four years, if I recall. I loved "Arrested Development", but it got 2.5 seasons and never drew decent ratings.

As an aside: "genre" is not a synonym for "sci-fi/fantasy", and I don't know how the heck that ever took hold in internet language. Lambertman 15:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Boston Public wasn't given a proper send-off; it had no final episode to wrap up anything. Still, given the several years it was on as you said, it can probably be removed from the list.--GeneralDuke 17:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the cut-down of the edits, but I would like to see the station branding sections and O&O news sections retained, either within this article or in a separate article (such as Fox Network Affiliate Branding, Fox News (local stations) or names of that sort), they were well-written sections that just got too big for this article and Fox's O&O newscasts are becoming uniform enough to warrant a heading of their own. Nate 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Schedule grid

Seems silly to include the late-night lineup - it shrinks the primetime to almost unreadability , and six nights out of seven it's nothing but "local programming." (Same goes for NBC) Lambertman 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilley?

Seems odd to see Giraldo mentioned but not O'Reilley.

This is Fox TV, not Fox News Channel. Also, please sign your statements by typing ~~~~. Lambertman 13:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Questionable line

I think the line "During this time, Fox also featured weekly lowbrow shows such as World's Wildest Police Videos and When Animals Attack." is pretty biased. Is it lowbrow? Yes. Should we call it that in wikipedia? I don't think so. Mikelj 03:09, 19 October 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)

Schedule information

The section as it has been presented is perilously close to violating WP:NOT, in that it almost becomes a TV Guide of sorts. I have made a few modifications, primarily to the January listing information to better conform to the standards noted by WP:NOT and subsequent discussions (which occurred in AFDs for station listings for each of the six broadcast television networks a few weeks ago). While the information is good information (especially for a television geek like me that works in the business), if it violates WP standards, then it needs to be reworked to better serve the purposes and guidelines of WP. --Mhking 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just see it as a place where all of the current programming is organized in one place, similar to a page like 2006-07 United States network television schedule, just split into each network, with the other information there as programming notes. The stuff you deleted, however useful it may be, is probably a good idea not to have on Wikipedia since those points are pretty much like TV Guide. I would have to admit, though, that I am a little biased based on the fact that I created the schedule grids for the "Big Four" networks. Bmitchelf 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly understand, and appreciate the work. I've been trying not to remove the gist of the information you've obviously worked so hard on. I have been trying to become a bit more vague (and in term, at least hopefully, a bit more encyclopedic) with the descriptions there. --Mhking 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Goosebumps?

"A new Goosebumps series called "Goosebumps 2007" will air this summer."

Can anyone verify this? I searched and searched and could not find any info. Some people claim to have seen a "trailer" with new episodes, but I couldn't find that either. I am thinking this is a rumor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.129.193.108 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Criticism

The criticism section comes across as being quite biased and one-sided in my view, and sounds like it was written by angry fans of cancelled show, a lot of the assertions in it are either incorrect or unresonable, a lot of those shows were promoted well (they even created multiple websites and a MySpace profile for Drive), or given enough time and promotion to gain viewers which they weren't able to do (Arrested Development), and the assertion that FOX should keep low-rate shows on air that are losing them millions of dollars every week simply because of 'critical acclaim' and 'dedicated fan bases' are pretty unfair --IvanKnight69 14:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Logo

Why are we using a blue version? Isn't the official colour orange? - Mike Beckham 08:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation improvements?

Someone should really go through the citations on this page and use proper citation templates on them; at very least, the hyperlinks should be given titles.

Secondly, Does Born in the USA's existance really require 11 citations? Seems way overdoing it TheHYPO 19:11, 2 December 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) 01:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be more criticisms

Fox has been considered by many to be Islamophobic, antimuslim, racist, republican and messed up. what about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velanthis (talk • contribs) 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Omg this article is basically a big commercial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.31.13 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Velanthis, because none of those things are true; it's a slight factual problem. Sorry. 69.245.80.218 (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Availability of network

I wanted to know if it is a good idea to include the availability of the network (i.e. terrestrial, cable, satellite) at the bottom of the info box and what channel it appeares on in its areas in the same part of the infobox. Have a look at these examples of networks in Australia and the UK Nine Network, BBC Three. Have a look at the bottom of the infobox on both of them and see what you think. If you think its good set up the fox infobox like that.Cricketman274 (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

2008 slogan

I forget what it is but as part of the earth day campaign for Fox, they have a new slogan for whenever the green leaf Fox logo comes on usually after the commercials and before the continuation of the program. Can you please find out what it is and add it? Meepboy (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick Cancellations section

I agree the section needs sourcing, but I have made one change. Using Dark Angel and Tru Calling to illustrate "quick cancellations" makes no sense because both shows ran for about 2 seasons. Much better examples would be Firefly (an easily sourced example cancelled after a dozen episodes) and Wonderfalls (cancelled after only 3 or 4 episodes and again easily sourced). So I have made the substitution. I dispute the inclusion of Fastlane as I don't really know if it having a particularly active fanbase. Drive might be a better example for the third show, but I'll leave that one be. The cancellation of Alien Nation at the end of its first season might be another viable inclusion, too, as might Lone Gunmen or Harsh Realm. 23skidoo (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FOXNewsSpecialPresentation.JPG

The image Image:FOXNewsSpecialPresentation.JPG 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.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Fox sports.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

page move?

Why is this page not located at FOX like NBC (National Broadcasting Company)? -Zeus-^u_c 05:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlike NBC and CBS, the term "fox" has meanings other than the network itself in wide usage. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We probably wouldn't house it at "FOX" anyway, as it's not an actual abbreviation. –xeno (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Criticism Section

Although the criticism section has been tagged for almost two years, it appears little progress has been made towards improving it. I propose that:

• The subsection "Quick cancellations" should be deleted, since it contains no real sources describing quick cancellation criticisms (one is an anime news source that describes just one show, not a network trend, and the other appears to be just a blog). To infer any kind of significant criticism from these sources violates wp:synthesis and wp:reliable reference.
• The subsection "News" needs to incorporate more sources from its main article (it currently contains none). If no reference of criticism can be found for the handling of the O.J. Simpson trial, that reference should be removed.
• The subsection "Clip sharing websites" should be deleted because its three sources of criticism are either blogs or obscure opinion pieces (again, violating wp:reliable reference). The opinion piece does not even conclude whether or not FOX's actions were legal, but only includes uninformed speculation.
• The subsection "Sports" has been tagged for more than two years as needing citations but still contains none. Since nothing has been done for so long a time, I propose deleting the entire section.

Please leave your opinions about these proposed changes. Unless the consensus is against them, I'll make the changes in a couple days.  EJNOGARB  02:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 coporate restructuring section

This section is a poor addition to the article. It is given far too much weight, violating WP:UNDUE, is only marginally relevant, as it is largely about other News Corp. properties, and reads like a press release more suitable to an item at Wikinews than a section of a Wikipedia article. I'm going to see what I can trim down and incorporate into the history section, but I don't think there's much worth keeping.oknazevad (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, the only really important, non-press-release sounding bit was the name of the new/current chairman, which is already in the infobox at the top of the article. So I put the kibosh on the entire section. oknazevad (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

FOX or Fox?

We are having a debate over at The Jay Leno Show. When referring specifically to the Fox Broadcasting Network, should we use FOX or Fox? My understanding is that FOX is used specifically to refer to the broadcast network, while Fox refers to related entities such as the parent film/TV studio, Fox News Channel, etc. Support for FOX:

• FOX redirects to Fox Broadcasting Company.
• Press releases, both by News Corp and from competitors, use FOX. (Note, again, the distinction News Corp makes between FOX and Fox.)
• The well-regarded TVbytheNumbers uses all caps.

Support for Fox:

• Tons and tons of news articles that use Fox. Tons that use FOX, too, but I'll bet there's more of the former than latter.
• Although this article says that the network says that the network is "stylized FOX," as with news articles there's no question that both FOX and Fox are used in other articles.

Support for neither/both:

• The Manual of Style is not helpful. The TIME example seems most relevant, and clearly implies the preference for Fox. I'd argue in this case, though, that using Fox when discussing the network in the context of also using CBS, ABC, and NBC risks drawing undue attention to the other networks' names, something the Manual of Style page warns against. YLee (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty well established that Wikipedia doesn't follow unusual capitaliztion schemes, and standardizes names to regualr English rules, barring a few exceptions. The Time example cited is exactly the standard that applies here. As such Fox, not FOX should be used. The concern about ABC, CBS and NBC (and the CW, for that matter) is unfounded, in my opinion, as those are initialisms, whereas Fox is not. If we were to use one FBC would be correct, but that is not used in common usage, and therefore we can't use it either. oknazevad (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Oknazevad; clearly Fox is not an initialism, while ABC, CBS and NBC are. Both the manual of style and reliable sources would suggest "Fox" instead of "FOX". The initialism-style usage is only noted by the broadcasting company itself as a style, and by a scant few other sources, probably just from copying FBC's own stylization. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 00:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I happened to come across this conversation just now, and I wanted to mention that User:Firsfron and I had a conversation about this a couple of months ago, which can be located here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations/Archive 9#Fox vs. FOX. FWIW, I still think that FOX is the more appropriate style, at least where competing US national brands may be mentioned, based on WP:UNDUE. I also think that there's a legitemate, albeit much weaker, argument to be made to use FOX based on WP:COMMONNAME. The fact that FOX is technically incorrect is certainly true, but I dont' see that as a compelling argument since the usage of FOX is as much of a branding neologism as the use of NBC, ABC, CBS, etc... It is in the US, anyway.
— V = I * R (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the common name assertion. Per virtually all recent news articles (that can be found by searching Google News), the usage "Fox" is commonly used over "FOX" in these reliable sources. The only place I've seen "FOX" used exclusively is either through FBC's own advertised stylization, or through individual interpretations of the name, which would amount to original research. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 02:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ω's message got me to think again about the merits of FOX versus Fox.

Why does Wikipedia prefer Time over TIME when discussing the magazine? Because the latter would give it undue attention compared to other periodicals ("reporters from TIME, Newsweek, and National Geographic attended the press conference"). Now look again at Fox. Wouldn't the absence of caps be the cause of drawing undue attention ("NBC, Fox, and ABC will debut their new shows in September")? The fact that News Corp suggests using FOX over Fox shouldn't willfully discourage willfully from doing so (as such outside requests are sometimes seen, in my experience); that it does should, on the contrary, be taken into consideration, even if not exclusively. There's also the clear advantage for Wikipedia editors of being able to unambiguously specify the US television broadcasting network versus the cable news channel, the cable movie channel, the cable sports channels, etc., etc.

I don't disagree that news articles use Fox more often than FOX (at least, that's my hunch; I haven't run a formal search), but the latter use certainly isn't rare or unusual. YLee (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that line of thought is that the use of Time instead of TIME has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE, but instead is based upon WP:NC, which simply states to not use unusual capitalization schemes for brands, unless they are universally used, which as noted, is not true for FOX.

And I really don't think that too many readers would think that "Fox" is any less of a network than NBC, CBS or ABC due to the lack of allcaps spelling, as people are both used to seeing it in that fashion, as it's more commonly used, and because they understand that CBS, ABC and NBC are (former) initialisms.

In all, I think it's a non-issue, and the current use of "Fox" is the correct, established usage. oknazevad (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but why does the naming convention for trademarks exist in the first place? I'd argue that it's at least in part precisely to avoid WP:UNDUE/WP:SOAP when discussing them.

The need to avoid confusion must be considered, too. When discussing magazines, Time is unambiguous whether in all caps or not. When discussing metal bands, Kiss is unambiguous whether in all caps or not. When discussing television, Fox is horribly ambiguous; only FOX is not.

Finally, Fox is not in fact the established Wikipedia usage; otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. We are trying to set Wikipedia usage in this particular instance, not changing an already-existing standard for the network's name. I am certainly not trying to change the manual of style as a general rule.

While Fox is likely more common in news articles than FOX when discussing the broadcast network, there certainly is no shortage of the latter usage. In Wikipedia, plenty of articles use one (or both) and I don't know which one is more common; certainly the fact that FOX redirects specifically to Fox Broadcasting Company doesn't hurt. YLee (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Fox is perfectly unambiguous from context. There is a single American broadcast television network named Fox, so the use of that term is certainly no less ambiguous than the use of ABC would be (do you mean the American Broadcasting Company or the Australian Broadcasting Corporation). Usually, the usage is perfectly unambiguous from the usage in the article. When I read "XXXX is a American TV show broadcast on the Fox television network", I do not get confused and think "Do they really mean the FOX television network?" Seriously, there is no ambiguity, and if there is it can be dealt with easier by rewriting the article text rather than violating naming conventions... --Jayron32 20:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In your example, "Fox television network" is indeed ambiguous. Is it Fox News Channel, Fox Movie Channel, the Australian Fox Sports, etc., etc.? (Good thing Fox Family Channel was sold and renamed!) Now, let's shorten your example into the form that typically exists on Wikipedia: "XXXX is a TV show broadcast on Fox." It then becomes even more ambiguous. FOX, on the other hand, only refers to one United States broadcast-television channel. If editing thousands of articles to eliminate the ambiguity becomes necessary, what's simpler, changing "Fox" to "FOX" or changing every instance to "the Fox broadcast television network in the United States"?

Again, I am not looking to change the established naming conventions; on the contrary, I'm looking to clarify them. This is an unusual, but real, corner case, one that the MOS doesn't quite cover, that we ought to nail down. YLee (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See, but you're not really addressing the issue. Calling Fox Broadcasting Company "FOX" doesn't really fix anything, because the "Fox" in Fox News Channel, Fox Movie Channel and so on are also stylized as "FOX" in those respective cases. So, saying "XXX is a TV show broadcast on Fox" is no different than "XXX is a TV show broadcast on FOX". As long as the piped link to Fox Broadcasting Company is included. And since naming conventions favor "Fox", that is what should be used. If disambiguation is needed, we can use "XX is a TV show broadcast on Fox Broadcasting Company." Also, you'd probably need to succeed in moving the Wiki article for Fox Broadcasting Company to FOX Broadcasting Company for this request to have any merit. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 06:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's a straw-man argument. As I noted above, one of the reasons that it may make sense to use FOX to refer to Fox Broadcasting Company is that it is what News Corp suggests using as a stylistic initialism. News Corp does not use FOX to refer to any of its other properties, nor does it call its over-the-air US broadcast network FOX Broadcasting Company. Again, I do not favor changing any existing Wikinaming conventions (like TIME instead of Time magazine), only saying that FOX is a specific use for a specific case which the conventions do not completely resolve as they currently stand. YLee (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to say that I am aware that even News Corp is not very good about using Fox versus FOX in various contexts. My point is that its stylistic preference for the broadcast network, FOX, may make sense in in this particular Wikipedia context for the reasons discussed above, as opposed to a general statement about Fox versus FOX outside Wikipedia. YLee (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Max?

This article refers to the "big four" networks including something called Max. This can't be a reference to Cinemax, they're a cable network. And the link just goes to a graphics program. Was this a troller?

It looks like it was a little bit of stealth vandalism. Thanks for mentioning it. :-) --NormanEinstein July 4, 2005 13:23 (UTC)

Fox kids section

That Fox Kids section shouldn't really be there on the page. It should have it's own page however(if it doesn't already.)

Even though there is another page for Fox Kids, this page incorrectly lists VR Troopers as a Fox Kids show. It was only aired in syndication. It's not listed on the main Fox Kids page, but it's still listed here.

Launch

The launch dates are conflicting.

Book section...

I removed this section and added a further reading section linking to the books. Here is the removed content:

Fox's brief history and rapid rise as a television network has been the subject of two books. The first book, Outfoxed, ISBN 0312039042, was originally published in 1990, and details the network's beginning and little else, as the network was only a couple years old at the time. The second book, Daniel M. Kimmel's The Fourth Network, ISBN 1566635721, was published in 2004, and details the complete history of the network (up to the 2003-04 television season).

This information should probably be added to the respective article pages: Outfoxed (book), The Fourth Network.

Programs

I don't see much mentioned about the fact that "Trading Spouses" and "Wife Swap" are two virtually identical shows. Also same kind of thing applies to "Nanny 911" and "Super Nanny." 勇敢な要素 (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

While it does seem true that Fox has a habit of copying other networks' ideas (Dont Forget the Lyrics and So You Think You Can Dance also started as apparent knock-offs), I don't think that they're all that much worse than other networks. (The Vampire Diaries being the CW's most egregious example.) Either way, I think it doesn't really belong here, but in each individual article. oknazevad (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move May 2010

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fox Broadcasting Company → FOX Broadcasting Company — This company refers to itself as FOX, not Fox. Article title should reflect this. (See FOX website title) Hm2k (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks): "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner ... Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting official". In other words, to prevent violations of WP:NPOV, an organization like Fox doesn't get to unilaterally declare it "official" for everyone else in the world to put its name in lights for free every time it's mentioned. --Closeapple (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Basically, whatever looks prettiest over what is right. Got it. --Hm2k (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:MOSTM, the guideline covering trademarks and brands, explicitly states not to do this. We don't need articles with titles like REALTOR, TIME, Se7en, Alien³, etc., despite those being their "official" names: these are brandings, and are designed to promote their products. But Wikipedia is not supposed to be promotional. NBC, CBS, and ABC are actual abbreviations, and are pronounced en-bee-cee, cee-bee-ess, ay-bee-cee. A reader who is truly unfamiliar with Fox in this context will end up pronouncing it "eff-oh-ecks". Firsfron of Ronchester 14:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The letters are not pronounced individually, and per WP:MOSTM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'". TheFeds 01:06, 18 May 2010 (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.

"Criticism"

I noticed Fox_Broadcasting_Company#Criticism

This section needs to go. The content in it needs to be redistributed throughout the article. We can't have separate praise and criticism sections. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, especially since the article almost solely reflects the PTC's opinion on the network.184.94.80.31 (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It blocking youtube videos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.74.120 (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move August 2013

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 not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Fox Broadcasting Company → Fox (network) – Unlike ABC/NBC/CBS (who have, in the past, used their full names on-air, but have shifted almost exclusively to their initials as their identity), Fox has never had a full name, because its just a single word to begin with. I do not hear "Fox Broadcasting Company" used on-air at all, I only hear "Fox" and nothing else, and just about every source I've seen follows suit. Thus, I would consider this a case of WP:COMMONNAME. Heck, even NBC and CBS's articles are actually located at those names instead of "National Broadcasting Company" and "Columbia Broadcasting System" (then again, these are distinct initials that aren't common names for a vulpine...) ViperSnake151  Talk  06:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Avoiding parenthetical disambiguation is a good thing. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• But, "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." ViperSnake151  Talk  15:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Fox (network) isn't a common name. I agree with the IP. It would be better to avoid the parenthetical disambiguation. --MicroX (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I prefer to retain the natural disambiguation title, like American Broadcasting Company does. Per WP:NCDAB, a natural disambiguation may be used "when there is another term or more complete name that is unambiguous, commonly used in English, and equally clear". The Fox (network) title may not be sufficiently unambiguous enough, since the Fox Entertainment Group owns numerous other networks and cable channels around the globe. Even a title like Fox (U.S. network) may be problematic because there are also several "Fox Networks" in the United States. Furthermore, WP:NCCORP states that the legal status of the entity (e.g. "corporation", "Inc.", or in this case "company") may be used when disambiguation is needed. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Isn't there a difference between a channel and the company that puts on that channel? Red Slash 01:47, 10 August 2013 (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.

In northeast Iowa,sunday football on fox

How come we are getting the sunday football game in Spanish and not English on channel 28.1 in northeast Iowa, over the air in waterloo. iowa?

billnarey1941@q.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.110.60 (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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 23:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Fox Broadcasting Company → Fox (U.S. TV network) – the full name "Fox Broadcasting Company" was retired in favor of the simply FOX name. 190.128.125.125 (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article has a source from June 2014 giving the company name as Fox Broadcasting Company. If that is somehow out of date, then some source needs to be provided to establish that it is so. Even if it is so, natural disambiguation is to be preferred over artificial disambiguation. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment a search on site:www.fox.com listed non programme or otherwise specific pages as "Fox Broadcasting Company". GregKaye ✍♪ 10:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:NCDAB, natural disambiguation is generally preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. In addition, the proposed title of "Fox (U.S. TV network)" is still ambiguous because there are several other "Fox Networks" in the United States, either broadcast networks or cable networks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, WP:NATURAL etc. Red Slash 08:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments above. Fox is more than a U.S TV network, and the company is still referred as "Fox Broadcasting Company. I think the name should be changed to "FOX Broadcasting Company", but that's just my opinion. CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)CookieMonster755
• Oppose as per above. --IJBall (talk) 03:29, 28 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fox 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/20090210185334/http://mandjshow.com:80/where-to-watch to http://www.mandjshow.com/where-to-watch/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141229221656/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090202/tv_nm/us_marriage;_ylt=Ah1O6jcn1kz.84IZcJTG86JxFb8C to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090202/tv_nm/us_marriage;_ylt=Ah1O6jcn1kz.84IZcJTG86JxFb8C

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

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)