Talk:Paramount Network

Untitled

Why was it moved from Spike TV? They may just say "Spike" on-screen, but the channel is still OFFICIALLY known as Spike TV. If no one objects I will move it back later today. TJ Spyke 20:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

I do not know who tagged the article with "unreferenced," but I think I know why. Please source the demographic statements at the end of the opening paragraph. - Desmond Hobson 22:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gallery of logos

I have asked an admin with a lot of experience in fair use images. This is her reply:

That's quite a tough one because there is no strict guideline where you could point and say: here it is! (BTW, I am not keeping up with latest developments on fair use policies) My take at this: If someone wrote an article Logos of Spike TV or a decent section about them then it would be ok to show all those logos (of course, the article might be subject to WP:OR and notability guidelines). As of right now, it is a violation of the policy because there are too many of them (FUC#3), they do not identify the subject of the article (the first logo used in the infobox does, FUC#8), they do not illustrate text (in fact the section has no text, FUC#8). Also practical look: such galleries do not belong to articles in any case, even if the images are free (Wikipedia is not an image gallery). That's my take on this. Renata 03:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My own understanding is the same as Reanata's. We use to blankly forbid all galleries of fair use images. Now we allow it in exceptional circumstances, but I do not find the circumstances exceptional. I am removing the gallery Alex Bakharev 03:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally just came to this page to see all the old logos and remember the past... I guess Wikipedia isn't about maintaining all knowledge. Unfortunate. -24.141.153.56 05:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Special logo for WWF/WWE programming during the years 2000-2003

When Spike TV was know as TNN-The National Network/the New TNN, they have a special version of the logo used from 2000 to 2003 when they had WWF/WWE programming on. this logo had the letters TNN styled in the WWF/WWE scratch logo font that the WWE/WWF used for their attitude era logo and the current WWE logo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:TNNlogo.PNG

Image:TNNlogo.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 04:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? : "Spike TV/Spike (2003-present)" section

_ _ This title is too cryptic for a section, in spite of the sent in the lead 'graph that says

By mid-2006, the on-screen name was shortened to simply "Spike."

(And i, for one, am likely not to read the lead for inside-baseball details on large topics i'm already acquainted with.) It doesn't sound like the name change was even a clearly recognizable event, let alone a notable one, let alone one that characterizes the roughly 3 years since the end of the preceding section's scope, as a section title must.
_ _ I doubt i have the best perspective to fix this mess, but i can improve it, and others can work from there.
--Jerzy•t 18:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Incoherancy repaired?

I found

Though the programming is still aimed at the male demographic (age 18-35), Spike no longer makes the claim of "the first network for men". This is, in part, due both to the fact that there had been earlier forays into "male-only" television (such as MenTV in Canada) to the risk of losing its Canadian audiences due to risk of "duplication" (in terms of programming and target audience) according to Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission regulations.

The second sentence is nonsense for lack of an "and" to pair with the "both". I inserted an "and":

Though the programming is still aimed at the male demographic (age 18-35), Spike no longer makes the claim of "the first network for men". This is, in part, due both to the fact that there had been earlier forays into "male-only" television (such as MenTV in Canada) and to the risk of losing its Canadian audiences due to risk of "duplication" (in terms of programming and target audience) according to Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission regulations.

then reflected the likelihood that "due ... to the fact" is unverifiable, and cleaned up various things that are problems if my "and" is correct:

Though the programming is still aimed at the male demographic (age 18-35), Spike no longer makes the claim to be "the first network for men". Presumable motivations for this include acknowledging earlier attempts at "male-only" television (such as MenTV in Canada), and the risk of losing access to its Canadian audiences due to a claim of "duplication" (in terms of programming and target audience) contrary to Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission regulations.

IMO it still needs work: explanation is needed of what they should fear duplicating and why they would believe that they can hide their target audience unless they are willing to change their programming to do it! It also would reduce confusion if a non-Canadian prior example were available to add or substitute: as it stands, i'm still not sure that the Canadian origin of MenTV is not part of the problem with the RTC regs.
--Jerzy•t 22:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's another like it:

most of the two network systems

which i can only interpret as meaning the same as

both of the two network systems

I'm replacing the language i found with

worth up to $80 million, despite each of those network systems having previously aired at least part of the original trilogy

But in case it means something else, this is here to help in cleaning up the new mess i've made.
--Jerzy•t 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thenewtnnlogo1.gif

Image:Thenewtnnlogo1.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 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 (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Split

I suggest we split this article into TNN (TV channel) and Spike (TV channel). The TNN sections are taking up nearly half the article, and I think there is sufficient information and references in that article to create a separate one and leave this article to Spike alone. --Zpb52 (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes for

• Vote For - nominating vote --Zpb52 (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Vote For --Caldorwards4 (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Vote For - The Nashville Network was so different from the current Spike TV, it needs to have its own article. Steevo714 (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
• Vote For I agree with Steevo714 Weeliljimmy ^talk 17:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Vote For - I agree with the split. Searches on TNN are basically met with a blank wall! TNN needs to have a reference of its own.66.159.210.127 (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Vote For - In the way that Detective Comics had a different article than Batman --Knulclunk (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Votes against

Strong Oppose Standard convention on other pages it keep its total history intact despite a format change. No reason to change that here. Examples include ION Television, Investigation Discovery, Versus (TV channel), Hallmark Channel and TruTV. Convention changes should be decided at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television -- Cmjc80 (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Very strong oppose Just like what Cmjc80 said up there, there is no reason to do the split. Many pages have this type of merge, and it keeps well. This article is also like that. If we split this page, it would be almost like 2 stubs because both of the networks on the page seem to just fit together, plus it would just be a waste of time that could be used on other pages. WWEISREAL 15:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral votes

Looks like there's no objection (or anything, for that matter), so I'm going to go ahead and split these articles. --Zpb52 (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Gaylord Entertainment

Entry says "Texas based Gaylord Entertainment," but the Gaylord Entertainment entry gives no indication that it was ever Texas-based, although they have a hotel in Texas. It was previously part of an Oklahoma publisher, and now is headquartered in Tennessee. I'm removing the "Texas based." Oswald Glinkmeyer (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also. Gaylord sold TNN at same time CMT was sold (around 1996). This article is wrong.

Huh?

"Today, after several changes of ownership and name, Spike operates as part of MTV Networks, owned by Viacom and is one of 4 to not belong to a brand."

I have no idea what this is trying to say. Can someone clean it up? Lexicon (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

New Nick Gas

Rumors on this YouTube page shows "at 6:00am on July 22, 2010 Spike TV left digital cable and satellite for directv and dish network after an episode Jail replaced by New Nick GAS for My Family's Got Guts & BrainSurge." by YouTube Username, lerdalparker23. This has however not been verified by MTV Networks, Viacom or Nickelodeon Productions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.11.74 (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

GIVE W007 FOE MIKE MOZART!

Way to go Mike for showing Youtube Users that their videos are being stolen! WOOT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuPeg (talk • contribs) 04:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What?

Does this really belong in this article? YouTube was also launched in 2005, which later suffered a class action lawsuit reported to be over $1 billion. Spike.com's managing division claims that they only host videos they approve after they are submitted.[36] YouTube Partner user Mike Mozart pointed out videos on Spike.com/iFilm that were uploaded from YouTube onto Spike.com, without permission as their descriptions are criticizing the video itself. He also pointed out that YouTube embeds hosted on Spike.com did not link back to YouTube, and any sort of video hyperlinking was forcibly disabled, contradicting YouTube's Terms of Use.[37] This link goes to a YouTube video where a man talks about toys. I do not think it adds much to the article.--BeckiGreen (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Spike (TV network) → Spike (TV channel) – As per the relevant articles, "television network" refers to a broadcast frequency or number in program guides. "Television channel" is the right term for the content provider. --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 75.142.30.100 (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think the nominator has the definition of the two terms backwards... according to the two articles he/she points us to (Television network and Television channel), a "channel" is the specific frequency or number in program guides, while "network" is the content provider. Thus, "network" is appropriate here. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment a broadcast frequency based company is a television station (ie. WNBC, KABC, CFTO), a single cable signal content provider is a television channel (ie. HBO), a network of TV stations or a set of cable channels is a television network (ie. ABC, NBC, CBS; ESPN+ESPN2..., Discovery+DiscoveryScience... ) Some TV stations broadcast multiple signals, so each signal is a channel. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:38, 14 June 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 one external link on Spike (TV network). 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/20100218104440/http://www.tnawrestling.com:80/news/item/1772-impact-moves-to-mondays-on-march-8 to http://www.tnawrestling.com/news/item/1772-impact-moves-to-mondays-on-march-8

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} 16:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrestling on TNN

sorry but it wasnt its airing of WWF programming that started its wrestling years

its well known that between 1999 & 2000 TNN briefly aired (it is surmised as a test run for wrestling on the network) episodes of ECW on TNN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECW_on_TNN

Tony Spike (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"Star Trek" on the Paramount Network

When Spike becomes the Paramount Network next year, it may have the rights to all the classic Star Trek shows and movies. At the moment, those classic Star Trek shows are currently airing on H&I. AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Spike is owned by paramount, It will just be a name change. They already have the rights to play Star Trek, they just don't.--ANDREWs13 (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

CBS Studios owns the Star Trek rights. Viacom can't do anything unless they pay licensing fees to CBS for the shows and films, and CBS basically pays nothing to put it on CBS All Access. That arrangement isn't changing (and 98% of people are loyal to the title itself, not whatever the studio is on the end card). Nate • (chatter) 03:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spike (TV channel). 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/20070930183808/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/apr01/apr09/1_mon/news2monday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/apr01/apr09/1_mon/news2monday.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930183808/http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/apr01/apr09/1_mon/news2monday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/apr01/apr09/1_mon/news2monday.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2018

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: no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Spike (TV channel) → Paramount Network – Spike will be rebranding to Paramount Network this week. Also, the Spike brand will be phased out and eliminated completely. 104.156.124.126 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It's nothing more than a name change, the channel isn't closing down. Creating an entirely new article for a rebrand is redundant. We didn't need to create a new article for Freeform (TV channel) or Universal Kids and we don't need to do a new article for Paramount Network. Simply change the name of the article and carry on. Furthermore, the rebrand is set for January 18, 2018, which is next Thursday. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that we need create another article because Spike is over will. The new Paramount Network will be a new channel with new programming. If it wasn't necessary the article about The Nashville Network shouldn't have to exist. --Matheus! (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We will move the article on January 18 when the name change takes place. JE98 (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Grossly premature. See official names. Andrewa (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

We will move the article on January 18 when the name change takes place - Oppose this too. We should move the article only if and when the common name changes. Andrewa (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that we need create another article... Good point. There's likely to be plenty of material for two (or more) articles, and notability doesn't seem to be a problem. Andrewa (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2018 (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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paramount Network/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 23:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this sort of article, I generally focus strictly on film and TV pages, but I think this one has been waiting for long enough so I'll see what I can do. I'll have a good read through the page soon, and get back to you with some thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting this up. Unfortunately, having read through the article, I feel that there is just too much unsourced content (and the sources that are there are not all up to par) to promote this to GA. I suggest work be put into fully sourcing everything in the article, and improving in-line citations to more accurately indicate what content is coming from where. Also ensure that all citations are properly filled out and archived. A general copy-edit also wouldn't hurt, for instance the lead reads like a bullet point list that has been formatted as prose rather than a natural paragraph. Once these issues have been dealt with you should feel free to nominate the article for GA again and I may pick it up if I see it. But for now, I am failing this review. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Paramount Network (Blue) Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

scam

Don't offer a show on your network then take it off your network sounds like a scam. 2603:8081:5F02:B823:FD46:C4E6:C585:7E61 (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Commercials

Is there anyway you can put on new commercials instead of the same ones I have seen for the past 10 years.....both tattoo ones are so old you can smell the musky smell from them and the wife swap is just pathetic just like the TV show..... 96.30.155.47 (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Paramount Network.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Spike Cable Networks

I was just wondering. Why don't we make the infobox for Spike Cable Networks, Inc.? This is something we could do for the copyright holder for Paramount Network as well as other holders from MTV Entertainment Group. RamsesTimeGame (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Paramount Networks

Nickelodeon MTV The Cw Comedy Central 5.212.245.54 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

شبکه های پارامونت

نیکلودن ام تی وی سای کمدی سنترال 5.212.245.54 (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm Shalee not Russell 174.231.209.194 (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Advertising

Yes there has to be advertising but Paramount has too many and they are long I very seldom watch the network because of that. 2600:6C5D:4100:F29:40C6:B87C:D843:7891 (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)