Talk:MUTV (Manchester United F.C.)

Fair use rationale for Image:MUTV Logo.gif

Image:MUTV Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mutv new logo.png

Image:Mutv new logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 Move to MUTV (Manchester United F.C.). Parsecboy (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Manchester United TV → MUTV — The Manchester United television channel has never been known as "Manchester United TV". Its initials may stand for "Manchester United Television", but "Manchester United TV" is not the name of the channel. I also contend that the most common usage of MUTV refers to this television channel, as the other two MUTVs on Wikipedia are university television channels, which have a very narrow spectrum of use. If you search Google for "MUTV -wikipedia" (without quotes), of the first twenty hits, only one refers to Marquette University Television, and it is not until the third page that any hits for Missouri University Television show up. Furthermore, both of those university television channels are known by their longer names, whereas MUTV (the Manchester United one) is only known by one name. Therefore, I suggest that Manchester United TV be moved to MUTV and that MUTV be moved to MUTV (disambiguation). — – PeeJay 16:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Although this is a request to move multiple pages, the move request placed here was not noted at the other pages which this proposal concerns, creating the possibility that the discussion here doesn't represent a proper cross-section of users. Under those circumstances, I can't consider this a consensus to move the page, and I'm sure other people coming here from WP:RM feel the same way. That might be one reason that this is stuck in the backlog there. I suggest notifying users on the other pages (in fact, I did so several days ago at RM). Dekimasuよ! 04:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC) (改正: That shouldn't prevent anyone from moving the article to a redlink as suggested below, since that wouldn't affect the other pages. Dekimasuよ! 04:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC))
  • A notification was posted on both Talk:Marquette University Television and Talk:MUTV (University of Missouri). MUTV (Missouri) authors have not responded here, but the discussion below was conducted with input from both Manchester United TV and Marquette University Television. The final consensus is to move Manchester United TV → MUTV (Manchester United F.C.) and leave MUTV alone (expect to fix the link to the moved page). I will contend that because MUTV (Missouri) and MUTV (Marquette) are very similar (both being college, student-run television stations), the consensus reached below satisfies all parties involved (even those that have not responded). Please reference the proposal area below for information concerning the consensus. Krocheck (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - never heard it called "Manchester United TV". - fchd (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Commonly known as MUTV. D.M.N. (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - We all know what the MU and TV abbreviations stand for, but the channel's official name is MUTV. --Jimbo^[online] 20:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I performed the aforementioned Google search, and of the first 10 results, 2 of these were to hits to "Manchester TV" (mu.tv and manutd.com), 1 to the Missouri MUTV, and 4 to Marquette's MUTV. With the respect to the argument saying that the current article name isn't the branding of the Manchester station, why not move the page to Manchester United Television? The other two MUTV's have done the same thing, (using their full names instead of abbreviations), and I think that the same should apply to Manchester TV. There's no need to use the initials page (MUTV) for a single station. Leave it as the disambiguation instead. — Johnl1479 01:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The article should not be moved to Manchester United Television as that is not its name now and never has been in the past. The initials MUTV may stand for Manchester United Television, but, as I explained in the nomination, the channel's name is MUTV and nothing else. Also, I believe I addressed the point that the other MUTVs use full names because those are names that they are known by. The abbreviated form exists, but only as an acronym for their full names. Finally, I believe your Google search must have been incorrect, as when I searched for "MUTV -wikipedia", even on the international Google (not the UK version), I still get eight hits for MUTV (the Manchester United version), and only one each for Missouri and Marquette's MUTVs. – PeeJay 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • After doing a bit of research it seems actually that both Missouri MUTV and Marquette's MUTV never refer to themselves as their full name, but rather as MUTV. I agree with Johnl1479 in that if the other two stations are using the full meaning of the abbreviation, and they are all listed on the MUTV landing page, there is no reason to change it. Preceeding comment was left by Matperk - Remeber to sign your comments with four tidle's — Johnl1479 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Incorrect. Marquette University Television's own website (http://mutv.mu.edu/) uses that very name in the browser titlebar. To be honest, I don't care about the titles of the other channels' articles. If those titles are incorrect, that's their problem, but it has no bearing on the fact that this article's title is wrong too. By all means add a disambiguator to "MUTV" for this page, and keep MUTV as the disambiguation page, but this page should not be located at Manchester United TV. – PeeJay 16:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
        • You said: "keep MUTV as the disambiguation page, but this page should not be located at Manchester United TV". I agree. The point I have been stressing from the beginning is that the initials MUTV are commonly shared by the subjects of three different articles. All lack the notability guidelines in WP:NOTE and all are only available in only select areas (with some exceptions [1] [2]). The current disambiguation should stay the same because of this. Don't bully out what has happily existed because Manchester United TV was named incorrectly. — Johnl1479 04:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Firstly, the comment above was that user's only post. More importantly, Google searching for quantity doesn't absolutely decide notability, although it is an indication. It's reliable, external sources that matter. Google searching MUTV: on the first page, the only external source for any of these channels is a TV listing in a national newspaper for Manchester United's channel. On the second page there are third party references to Manchester United's channel. Whilst it is true that they are predominantly english channel directories and in one case a sports channel directory, there is no equivalent listing of either of the other channels on this page. On the third page there are links to videos of the channel from NME, a significant third party source, and references to ITV's sale of the channel by a reliable source. ITV, incidentally, are one of the biggest broadcasters in the UK. On the fourth page, Sky- the biggest cable and satellite broadcaster in the UK- is listing the channel, even going into as much detail as individual programme descriptions. The fifth page has more references to ITV's sale. Given that in 50 hits there are NO third party sources for either of the other channels, it seems MUFC's predominant use is indeed the football club's channel. BeL1EveR (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC).
  • First posts on Wikipedia should never negate a person's opinion. — Johnl1479 16:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • New to the whole discussion thing, that is all. — matperk 23:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It would seem that we are all getting different result for Google searching MUTV. Therefore, let's not use that in our arguments. Secondly, Matperk brings up a valid point. A station most likely never refers to itself with it's full name unless a legal document/disclaimer is being drafted. I'm sure that the same thing goes for Manchester United TV. Point being, there are three articles on Wikipedia that all refer to themselves as MUTV: two have created their pages using their full station names based on the presence of the others (Marquette and Missouri), one was named improperly and instead of renaming it to it's full, proper name, it wants to take over the common acronym. The only error I see with the current set up is that the Manchester United TV article was improperly named at it's inception (NOT it should have been MUTV). — Johnl1479 16:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • BeL1EveR brings up a good point though. There are little-to-no third party sources that refer to either Marquette University Television or Missouri University Television, indicating that the predominant use of the term "MUTV" lies with the football club's television channel. Also, as we have continually tried to tell you, and you seem to have conveniently ignored, MUTV does not have a "full, proper name". Its name is MUTV and that is the only name by which it is known. By all means move the other MUTV articles, but, regardless of those articles' titles, this one should not remain at an incorrect title. – PeeJay 16:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - MUTV is it's cortect name, not Manchester United television [3] Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The link you provided does not provide proof that Manchester United Television's actual, proper name is MUTV. — Johnl1479 16:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually it does, seeing as the only name used on that page is "MUTV". I can see no mention of the phrase "Manchester United Television" or "Manchester United TV", can you? – PeeJay 16:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The legal name is "MUTV Limited" 2008 Annual Report (Pg. 7). Even though the point has been made about the proper name for Manchester, MUTV at Missouri's proper name is MUTV. Their proper name is not Missouri University Television (as the acronym would spell out) because the school's name is University of Missouri. The names simply don't match up, and likewise to the case above, "Missouri University Television" does not appear on the MUTV website nor as a search result on the Mizzou website[4]. MUTV at Missouri's proper name is MUTV just like MUTV for Manchester United. MUTV at Marquette does not have such an easy case because, as pointed out earlier, the name "Marquette University Television" is used in the website, but only in the title bar. I assume that is meant to help with search engine results. Obviously the title Manchester United TV needs to be changed because the name is not proper or legal. It would be proper to use the same naming convention MUTV of Missouri used, MUTV (University of Missouri), and move Manchester United TV to MUTV (Manchester United Football Club) (per BSkyB annual report).Krocheck (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Point of clarification. The above suggestion would leave MUTV in tact as the disambiguator for these three stations. Krocheck (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • First of all, "MUTV Limited" is the name of the company that operates the TV channel as a subsidiary company to Manchester United Limited. The channel itself is called MUTV. Nevertheless, although it has been proven that both Marquette University Television and University of Missouri Television both use MUTV exclusively as their channel name, I would still contend that the acronym's primary usage is in reference to the football club, hence my preference that this article takes the MUTV space. – PeeJay 08:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Please do not put words in my mouth. I only mentioned "MUTV Limited" to put to rest the argument to change the article title to Manchester United Television citing proof that the station's name is MUTV. It was a valid point to make and I never implied changing the article name to MUTV Limited. Yes, it is a subsidiary company ... whose sold operation is this station. I have also heard your reason with regards to primary usage, but MUTV having less than notable ratings [5] does not help your argument. I'm not implying that it is not notable, only that its not as prominent as you are leading this panel to believe. What I mean by that is that reading your comments makes me think people in the U.K. and abroad are tuning into this station on the same level as American viewers to ESPN ... and that clearly is not the case. Krocheck (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I would like to request the removal of this discussion and nomination from WikiProject Football. Even though this specific station is directly related to a Football team, the matter being discussed in a television-related issue and should be governed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. It is television, and not football related because discussions about awareness and ratings have been discussed regarding these three stations, both of which have no direct relation to the sport itself. Only an indirect relationship can be drawn from the fan base of the team, but that is reflected in ratings which gets back to it being a television discussion. Krocheck (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 16:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Have a look at Manchester untied own site http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid={972A2022-0D34-4D8E-880B-EAA2369D4FE4} it specific it as MUTV but i do not think that is the problem from reading it is the fact there is other MUTV articles, a google search specifically on MUTV brings up various versions just one page 1 http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=strict&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=izM&q=mutv&btnG=Search&meta= so i say the problem is how disambudation--Andrewcrawford (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC) I have no prefernce on this just putting a neutral poitn of view on it
  • Please also reference the equivalent Google.com search results where all three of these stations hit in the top 4 results (1,2 Manchester United; 3, Missouri; 4, Marquette). [6] The notability of the station outside of the UK is being called into question, similarly to how the two college stations loose notability outside their metropolitan region. It also important to note that Marquette University Television's Entertainment department shows are run nationally to colleges and universities on the Open Student Television Network, putting them on the U.S. national stage, but that does not necesarilly mean that MUTV is recognized as relating to Marquette.
    Ultimately the two U.S. college television stations believe that while common usage of MUTV in the U.K. and parts surrounding may be used to refer this this Manchester United station, if you asked someone in the U.S. what it was they would probably Google it and I believe that is true of most English speaking countries that have access to Wikipedia. MUTV is not an international household name like CBS which rightfully has that page and a disambiguation at CBS (disambiguation) (such as what is being suggested). Please do provide us with a fresh perspective on this. Thanks, Krocheck (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • You do realise your comments are biased? i can and will provide my opinion and that all it is a opinion on wha ti have read i am neutral and have no care as to what the outcome is i am just providing information that all cases are correct so please do not lecture me--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I do fully realize that my position is biased and that I am making statements of opinion, and I did not presume to lecture you. Sorry Krocheck (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Apology aptected :) you should try taking yourself out of the picture and not be biased as it will not resolve the issue and provide the solution that is best for all. Your opinions are valued but you should not say it your way and nothing else :( The proposal below seems a good way forward but unfortnally this page can not be merged into the disamiugation page as it is that and the other ones can rightly claimed to be MUTV, but...... if oyu more the MUTV to MUTV (disambugitioned) then move this page to MUTV (Manchester united Television) then that could be the way forward--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

This is getting nowhere. There are two sides to the argument, both of which could be deemed to have a conflict of interest (myself included). Firstly, I'd remind everyone that the best thing to do is to stay cool. Let the facts speak for themselves. If someone else has something wrong, let the facts prove them wrong. Anyway, I think we can settle this between ourselves, but if not it might be worth requesting for arbitration. At the moment the common ground is:

• We all agree that all three channels refer to themselves primarily or exclusively as MUTV.
• There is no opposition to moving this page to MUTV (Manchester United channel) if it's decided that Manchester United's channel is no more notable than Marquette and Missouri's channels.

As far as I can tell (please correct your respective bullet point if I'm mis-representing anybody):

• The Manchester United side of the argument is that that United's channel demonstrates notability far above that of the other two.
• The Marquette/Missouri stance is that United's channel doesn't demonstrate so much more notability as to warrant a move to MUTV.

TV2 is a good analogy of the situation. There are several national channels with this name. The reason the page is a disambiguation is because the channels are national and there is no real international coverage. The fact that the South African channel is comfortably the most viewed is neither here nor there, it has the same level of notability.

The Marquette/Missouri view is that this is the same situation. My view is that it isn't, but if I'm proved otherwise I'm very happy to accept this solution (although this page should be of the form MUFC (Manchester United xxx). The "google test" has more coverage for the football channel than the other two combined. That in itself is irrelevant- the fact that it is larger doesn't make it more notable. That test did, however, provide me with links indicating that the extent of third party coverage is a lot higher than all other terms. If this is the case, my view is that the page should be moved. Here are a few examples of the sorts of things I've seen no equivalent of for the other channels:

This link is a national newspaper's website, with MUTV among the channels that are considered worth including in the national TV listings. It's demonstration of national notability, I can provide others if this is deemed necessary. United's channel's partial sale reported by Reuters. The partial sale of the channel (i.e. something major happening) was deemed important enough to be reported by one of the biggest news organisations in the world. Also, two of the UK's three biggest broadcasters owned a third of the channel (one still does).

If the other side of the debate can give examples that either of the other two channels can demonstrate a similar level of notability, (i.e. links), I'm happy to accept MUTV (Manchester United channel). If not, I think this page should be moved to MUTV. BeL1EveR (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I cannot provide similar news articles, but what can show is that MUTV (Marquette) has a scope that reaches outside the Marquette and Milwaukee, WI areas. The OSTN channel is available as a full NTSC quality live stream to any Internet2 enabled college campus as well as being inserted into the cable systems on some college campuses [7]. The middle box OSTN Programs on the OSTN homepage lists Here Comes Your Man and Passport to Heaven both of which are produced at Marquette. Two of the 5 prominent entertainment shows on a national college television network are from MUTV. That alone does not make it notable, but OSTN has a lot of members/affiliates that produce shows for OSTN ... unfortunately they provide no easily accessible list except for the scroller on the bottom of their homepage. On a side note: I am keeping calm about this, but certainly posts can be read with a different tone than intended. I don't intend to be coming off as bitter or angry ... I simply want this handled properly and ensure that it is done fair. Krocheck (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, MUTV (Marquette) news reporters participate in the WISN-TV Student Commitment project. This project has been nominated for an Emmy - [8] (pg. 3). I will concede that it is not direct notability for the station itself, but it is for the station's work and personnel. In addition, MUTV received four Telly Awards this past year [9], two in the TV-19 (student) category, one in the national TV-23 (film/video, use of graphics) category, and one in the national TV-24 (film/video, use of humor). Krocheck (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Can't argue with awards, tbh, but then there are a great many more awards given out for student achievements than for sporting television channels. Nevertheless, I will concede that Manchester United's MUTV has not shown significantly more notability than the other two to warrant a move to MUTV. See my comment below for my suggestion for the page's ultimate move. – PeeJay 11:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I support the Manchester United TV → MUTV (Manchester United Channel) move. Such a move would satisfy the point of Manchester United TV being named improperly and keep those in support of MUTV being the disambiguation page happy. The two sides of this argument seem to be debating from two different contexts. We all agree that the Marquette and Missouri stations lack the national notability enjoyed by Manchester station in the UK, and that the Manchester station lacks national notability in the US. Therefore, none should enjoy living at MUTV — Johnl1479 22:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't like how clunky the name "MUTV (Manchester United channel)" is. I think "MUTV (Manchester United)" or "MUTV (Manchester United F.C.)" would be better, and they are similar to the way the University of Missouri's MUTV is disambiguated. – PeeJay 11:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • MUTV (Manchester United F.C.) might be best considering the club's page is Manchester United F.C. Thanks, Krocheck (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I was just using the example set forth by BeL1EveR. — Johnl1479 14:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Outcome

Seeing as there has been no new input in the past two days, have we reached an agreement that this page be moved to MUTV (Manchester United F.C.)? If anyone does not oppose, I will move the page 24 hours from now. — Johnl1479 05:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry I'm a little busy at the moment so haven't been around, but that all sounds good to me. BeL1EveR (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:WMTV (College of William & Mary) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)