Talk:Super RTL

New Logo!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/thumb/d/dd/Super-RTL_logo2007.svg/250px-Super-RTL_logo2007.svg.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.51.97 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Third?

Why "third"? Nickeleodeon was launched as a hardly-known pay TV channel months later than Super RTL, and Cartoon Network didn't come to Germany up until 2005 (yes, CN UK could be received via Astra satellite TV, but that wasn't "in Germany" or "in German"). So Super RTL was *FIRST*! --87.151.21.37 (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Germany has always been free TV.--77.11.180.222 (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

So-called Unintelligible writing

Bankster, even if it is unintelligible writing, which it is not , that does not give you the right to remove information sourced information about the station.

1. You are removing Disney's direct holding company for its share of RTL Disney Television Limited Partnership
2. Managing Directors are the top corporate position, so it is "unitelligible" to write: "A new managing director, Claude Schmit, was elected president of the joint venture"
3. New division of Super RTL formed, Super RTL Licensing Agency, information was removed for no apparent reason. Important as a push for additional revenue.
4. You remove the Toggo/Fun & Action Tour promotional roadshow event that RTL Group runs for Super RTL (Schröter, Christian (10 July 2018). "Ein großes Familienfest: Die Toggo Tour in Gütersloh". Gütsel, Stadtmagazin für Gütersloh (in German). Retrieved 19 September 2018. A big family party: the »Toggo Tour« in Gütersloh.)
5. Removal of the fact that Super RTL branded their preschool programming as "Toggolino" plus expand Toggolino to a online service, Toggolino Club.
6. And more. Spshu (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

1. It can be mentioned in the lead paragraph, which is already done.

2. It was due to the used prose in the "History" section, which I had to re-write.

3. Not relevant for the article. Remember this is about a TV channel. Information about spin-off agencies from the telly station goes to RTL Group

4. Removed since it shouldn't go inside the "history" section. Instead, it needs a separate one for events made by the network itself.

5. Information about the Toggolino brand didn't follow the prose of the section, as it seemed to be out of place grammatically.

--Bankster (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

1. No you removed it, so it is not "already done". Another editor has been block for continually removing this.

2. No you did not re-write it, you out right removed it.

3. These are spin off that are in the RTL Disney Television Limited Partnership, ie. Super RTL channel's business form, so it is not RTL Group and belongs here. This is a TV channel that has expanded. The channel's licensing unit has nothing to do with the channel?

4. "Removed since it shouldn't go inside the 'history' section." Nonsense if you can date the event then it can go into history.

5. "Information about the Toggolino brand didn't follow the prose of the section, as it seemed to be out of place grammatically." That is unintelligible writing on your part. The prose of the section is general by year and grammar has to do with sentence structure and word selection thus does not make some thing out of place in a section. Spshu (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

1. If another editor has removed that paragraph, it proves my point: it is not relevant at all. Removing it again.

2. You're right. I'll introduce it again.

3. No, that goes directly to RTL Group. Information must be centred on the TV channel, nothing outside its range.

4. No. It should have its own section. Either that or removed entirely.

5. It didn't follow prose and it was incorrectly written, hard to understand. Improve your writing next time, you're not proving anything.

@Spshu: next time you revert my edits, I'll be forced to report you on WP:AIV. Cheers. --Bankster (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

1. You seem to have glossed over the fact that he claims it its not true despite being sourced. That editor was also claiming this was a literal Disney Channel when it was not. I would not want to go down that road. He has been block for those actions. So it does NOT prove your point. More that you are going down the wrong path.

3. Sorry, that doesn't "goes directly to RTL Group". This is about a division of the channel/partnership. You are losing some context by putting else where. Such information is "centred on the TV channel", some times a channel become something more than a channel.

4. So, no real reason on your part.

5. You are the one making it worse. Spshu (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Information around the channel can be sourced, but if they're not directly related to the channel, it gets removed.

1. This was the case and I proceeded. I won't comment on the other editor's choice, as it is obviously evident. Don't use caps as it won't help you at all. Mind you, you were blocked not long ago so you don't want to repeat that again. Then, I don't understand the context. It is pretty badly written, I don't seem to comprehend as you do, even for someone who has an advance proficiency in English. Info in the article should be, in fact, only centred on the TV channel.

3. I just explained my argument: the event can be mentioned in a separate section as it doesn't contribute to the network's history.

4. Yeah, "no real reason on your part", mate.

5. Also, you might want to review the last edits I made to the article centred on the infobox, -as you were reverting them altogether without even looking them. I think that's why you end blocked in the first place. --Bankster (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)