Talk:Nickelodeon (Australia and New Zealand)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nick ident.PNG

Image:Nick ident.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 12:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Viacom

Nick & Nick are both half owned by Nickelodeon Australia Inc., which according to [1], is owned by Viacom. Reubot (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nickelodeon logo.gif

Image:Nickelodeon 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheesy Much?

Anyone else think that Nickelodeon is cheap and uses cheesy idents? An orange blob with a plain black background... Where as when you look at the US counterpart, they are at a whole new level.

Image copyright problem with File:Nickelodeon logo.svg

The image File:Nickelodeon logo.svg 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. --17:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Logo use, before Sept. 09

How long was the logo of Nick Australia used (I mean ) 24.183.52.110 (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Nickelodeon here in Australia is still using the splat type logo as of October 2009 aafuss (aafuss|talk) 16:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, what kind? Is it Image:Nickelodeon logo.svg,Image:Nickelodeon8409PNG.PNG, Image:Nick pk.png, Image:Nickcom logo.png, or Image:Nick-logo.svg? 24.183.52.110 (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, they use Image:Nickcom logo.png right now. 216.180.209.98 (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nickelodeon here in Australia is still using the splat type logo and no one at Foxtel has advised anyone if the logo is changing to ). aafuss (aafuss|talk) 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move

@Amakuru: In regards to the page move, I'd like to open up this discussion about what the name of the article should be. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting), I believe the correct naming protocol should be: "Nickelodeon (Australian and New Zealand TV channel)", as this adheres to the protocol and the standard of other pages. The example provided is "Channel 5 (British TV channel)" SatDis (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@SatDis: the purpose of the disambiguator is to quickly identify the specific topic for the reader, where there is some ambiguity. In this case with topics called Nickelodeon in other parts of the world. As such, the disambiguator should be as short as is necessary to do that identification, which also complies with the WP:CONCISE part of the article title policy. Adding TV channel on to the end of this disambiguator adds absolutely nothing to it, since we already know there are no things called Nickolodeon in Australia and New Zealand that aren't TV channels. It just adds extra guff for readers to read for no benefit; and the title has been stable at this name for some time now too. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Understood, thanks for sharing the explanation. I guess I'm just fascinated that other Nickelodeon pages have "Asian TV channel", "Latin American TV channel", "British and Irish TV channel"... it makes the Australian one appear incorrect, seeing as all the others follow the protocol. And in terms of my thought process, I see "Nickelodeon (Australia and New Zealand)"... and I think "Australia and New Zealand what???" I know the Disney Channel (Australian TV channel) page was changed from "(Australia and New Zealand)" because that was incorrect. I'd be interested to see what others think, or if we are keeping it the same just because that's the way it has always been? Again, I do understand... just posing some questions for thought. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I support moving to include the noun TV channel to the disambiguator Ollieinc (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru: @Ollieinc: A further argument is that the Australian "Nick Jr." page was moved from "Nick Jr. (Australia)" to "Nick Jr. (Australian TV channel)" in July 2019, and from "Nick Jr. (Australian TV channel)" to "Nick Jr. (Australia and New Zealand channel)" in November 2019. It would make sense for the Nick Jr. and Nickelodeon pages to match with the correct naming protocols. SatDis (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The correct naming protocols are actually to use the country only, see WP:NCBC#DisambiguationWP:CONCISE, which states where it can be reasonably expected that all of the articles with the same base name will be of the same type … disambiguation can be done by country and then by state/province or city if necessary. As only TV channels use this base name for Australia and New Zealand, the disambiguation should not be changed. Happily888 (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - leaving aside the TV channel issue, I think the disamboguators are unclear in this case. If we have Nickelodeon (Australian TV channel) but then also separately Nickelodeon (Australian and New Zealand TV channel), that's not really obvious disambiguation. Someone watching in Australia isn't going to be able to differentiate them purely based on whether it's the one that also showed in new Zealand. I'd suggest some extra disambiguation is needed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Amakuru: @Happily888: Okay, thanks. I'm happy to let this one go. In terms of the two similar articles, perhaps something like "pay-TV" and "free-to-air" is needed for disambiguation. I'm not sure exactly how that would look. SatDis (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)