Another U.S. Network changing it's name in 2016

JAGUARDOG wrote:
Just an F.Y.I. heads up that sometime in early 2016 the U..S. Network "H2" will become "Viceland TV". - Vice & A+E Networks To Launch Viceland TV Channel In 2016 That Will Replace H2 - http://deadline.com/2015/11/vice-ae-networks-vicel...
Another dumb name change but not quite as bad sounding as "ABC Family" that will become "Freeform" which in my personal opinion is the worst sounding U.S. Network name ever in TV History! Besides the name being stupid what in the He double toothpicks is it suppose to mean or stand for anyways? Maybe the heads who thought that one up should all be FIRED for their stupidity?

According to me, most networks usually change names as a last resort. ABC Family might be changing the name because it might want to eradicate the idea of the channel only being about 'Family' shows. It might want to start running normal people shows instead of PG 13s :P

And about A+E, it bought in about 10% stake in Vice and due to the acquisition they wanted to merge. They later increased the stake to 20%, which also brought in about $200M investment from Disney. It makes sense from a business standpoint.

Adnaan wrote:

According to me, most networks usually change names as a last resort. ABC Family might be changing the name because it might want to eradicate the idea of the channel only being about 'Family' shows. It might want to start running normal people shows instead of PG 13s :P
And about A+E, it bought in about 10% stake in Vice and due to the acquisition they wanted to merge. They later increased the stake to 20%, which also brought in about $200M investment from Disney. It makes sense from a business standpoint.

That's all great and understood however the name they decided on "Freeform" regardless of the reason still sucks badly and no one would ever convince me otherwise! I might have been inclined to just go with something easy like "ABC 2"?

or

the Imposter ABC

or

ABC the Clone

or

the ABC want to be

or

ABC we ain't

or

we are not ABC but we try harder

JAGUARDOG wrote:
That's all great and understood however the name they decided on "Freeform" regardless of the reason still sucks badly and no one would ever convince me otherwise! I might have been inclined to just go with something easy like "ABC 2"?
or
the Imposter ABC
or
ABC the Clone
or
the ABC want to be
or
ABC we ain't
or
we are not ABC but we try harder

I also think freeform is a very strange choice.

Yeah, Freeform sounds ridiculous for a network name. Thank the bullshit focus groups.

As for H2, as soon as the network is renamed the entry here should be renamed as well. We don't have network AKA's, so a note about it in the network summary would be good!

Why don't you just create new networks. You'd show for example that Kyle XY aired on freeform ten years ago though it starts in january 2016. you can change the network for running shows, i'm sure, but that doesn't make sense for the shows that ended before a network changed name.

Tonks wrote:
Why don't you just create new networks. You'd show for example that Kyle XY aired on freeform ten years ago though it starts in january 2016. you can change the network for running shows, i'm sure, but that doesn't make sense for the shows that ended before a network changed name.

I actually think this idea is not too Bad :)

JuanArango wrote:
I actually think this idea is not too Bad :)

I suggested it 3 or 4 months ago but David shot it down. I can't remember what his reason was for not doing it now mostly because it didn't make much sense to me, I couldn't comprehend what he was saying and I didn't want to drag it out?

Tonks wrote:
Why don't you just create new networks. You'd show for example that Kyle XY aired on freeform ten years ago though it starts in january 2016. you can change the network for running shows, i'm sure, but that doesn't make sense for the shows that ended before a network changed name.

Renaming the network is indeed confusing for older shows that ran entirely during the network's old name.

Though I think creating a new network would be equally confusing. If we do that, all the shows that are still running would suddenly change to an entirely different network in the middle of a season.

If the network themselves considers it a rename, I think we should follow that.

david wrote:
Renaming the network is indeed confusing for older shows that ran entirely during the network's old name.
Though I think creating a new network would be equally confusing. If we do that, all the shows that are still running would suddenly change to an entirely different network in the middle of a season.
If the network themselves considers it a rename, I think we should follow that.

Personally I am on the fence with this one (just hope it's not a picket fence) anyways on one hand I agree with your reasoning and on my other hand agree with Tonk. The only thing I might add to this discussion is that almost every non Major Network has changed their name 1 or more times in the past and that will be the case i'm sure for all eternity.

American Heroes Channel was previously known as The Military Channel

Discovery Family was previously known as HUB Network and Discovery Kids before that

Discovery Life Channel was previously known as Discovery Fit & Health

FOX Sports 1 was previously known as The SPEED Channel

Investigation Discovery was previously known as Discovery Times

Spike TV was previously known as The New TNN (The Nashville Network)

The Science Channel was previously known as Discoverey Science Channel

truTV was previously known as Court TV

Velocity was previously known as HD Theater and Discovery Theater before that

I could go on and on and on with tons more.

JAGUARDOG wrote:
Personally I am on the fence with this one (just hope it's not a picket fence) anyways on one hand I agree with your reasoning and on my other hand agree with Tonk.

I am very sorry but I have changed my stance on renaming Networks and here is why (R4)

I now have a reason to no longer be on the fence with this rename a Network or add it's new name in separately. I understand all that archive information stuff but I'm sure you can find away around that problem? Yes i agree if we add new network names in as new networks we could end up with thousands of networks over time especially if you consider all countries in the world who air or who have ever air a TV series. I have however just now come across a problem that i do not believe you can argue your way around?

I just now added a new (old) show to the site. New to the site however it has since ended so it's old in that it is no longer active. When i went to add the network for it i discovered the Network "Discovery Fit&Health" was not on the site at all and i was going to add it on the site, not a problem right? Well maybe a little problem if you go by what you want to do with renamed Networks? I discovered as I was looking for information about this network so I could add it in the network summary section that the network no longer existed. I also discovered that it no longer existed because it's name was changed to "Discovery Life Channel". So based on your comments that you did not want renamed Networks added as new networks and to rename the old Network whatever it's new name was I did not add it (at least not yet until you make a final decision anyways).

My first question i asked myself was the network under it's last name ever on the site before then renamed? My answer to myself is i have nol way or knowing if it was or not because we have no way of seeing archive information on the current network or anywhere on the site.

My second question to myself is what does it even matter if it was ever here before or not the question is irrelevant I assume?

Now more to my point if I assign the New network to the show as being the network it aired on that information would be incorrect as it never aired even 1 episode under/on the new network name.

Isn't it important that the last Network a show aired on be displayed on all shows active or inactive?

Also what happens if next week, next month, next year or sometime a person/member comes along and sees the invalid network and says to themselves the person that added this network had no clue what they were doing I will correct it now but it looks like i need to add that network to the site first and changes it to the correct network?

In closing regardless of the archive reason(s) I believe when a show last aired on a Network that is not here that it should be added to the site and show on that show in question?

note: no caps, no cussing, no rudeness, no demands, I am not upset, I am only making a point on why your policy (or proposed policy) should in my personal opinion be re looked at again please?

Thank you very much for your kind assistance in this matter, Ron, 11/09/2015 11:19 PM

To David : I'm not seeing any confusion in creating a new network. On the network page, it should tell you when the network was created and you add that's it's been a rebranding or an acquisition by another group which decided to change the name if it was an acquisition.

It tells you when it launched, what it replaced and when it shut down and by what it replaced.

Wikipedia works the same way. Actually all sites work like that. It should tell you something. That your choice might be the wrong one. If all other sites with more experiences than you do it in another way, there is a reason.

Or you find a system where both names are sent to the same network page, Wikipedia does that. But you'd need to allow AKAs

On the other hand, what you can't argue about is that displaying Kyle XY aired on Freeform would be incorrect information.

For me, it's more about a site with incorrect information. And I believe we all aspire for a site with correct info, not just clickable pages with incorrect information. Because that would have the reverse effect : you'll drive people away and it doesn't take much.

Tonks wrote:
To David : I'm not seeing any confusion in creating a new network. On the network page, it should tell you when the show was created and you add that's it's been a rebranding or an acquisition by another group which decided to change the name if it was an acquisition.
It tells you when it launched, what it replaced and when it shut down and by what it replaced. Wikipedia works the same way. Actually all sites work like that. It should tell you something. That your choice might be the wrong one. If all other sites with more experiences that you
On the other hand, what you can't argue about is that displaying Kyle XY aired on Freeform would be incorrect information. For me, it's more about a site with incorrect information. And I believe we all aspire for a site with correct info, not just clickable pages with incorrect information. Because that would have the reverse effect : you'll drive people away and it doesn't take much.

Excuse me? If I did not know better I would say you just shot yourself in the foot with your own gun? First you start off talking about just changing Network Names when they happen and not add the new named Network in as a separate Network?

Then you finish by contradicting yourself by saying just the opposite it sounds to me so I am totally confused here? Am I just all mixed up as to what you are saying in the beginning?

No, I'm not, Jaguar. I just wrote "show" instead of network at the beginning, my mistake.

I'm saying what should be on a network page... When it lauched, when it disappeared and why. You can then create the other network without a problem. Is that clearer for you ?

JAGUARDOG wrote:
I am very sorry but I have changed my stance on renaming Networks and here is why (R4)
I now have a reason to no longer be on the fence with this rename a Network or add it's new name in separately. I understand all that archive information stuff but I'm sure you can find away around that problem? Yes i agree if we add new network names in as new networks we could end up with thousands of networks over time especially if you consider all countries in the world who air or who have ever air a TV series. I have however just now come across a problem that i do not believe you can argue your way around?
I just now added a new (old) show to the site. New to the site however it has since ended so it's old in that it is no longer active. When i went to add the network for it i discovered the Network "Discovery Fit&Health" was not on the site at all and i was going to add it on the site, not a problem right? Well maybe a little problem if you go by what you want to do with renamed Networks? I discovered as I was looking for information about this network so I could add it in the network summary section that the network no longer existed. I also discovered that it no longer existed because it's name was changed to "Discovery Life Channel". So based on your comments that you did not want renamed Networks added as new networks and to rename the old Network whatever it's new name was I did not add it (at least not yet until you make a final decision anyways).
My first question i asked myself was the network under it's last name ever on the site before then renamed? My answer to myself is i have nol way or knowing if it was or not because we have no way of seeing archive information on the current network or anywhere on the site.
My second question to myself is what does it even matter if it was ever here before or not the question is irrelevant I assume?
Now more to my point if I assign the New network to the show as being the network it aired on that information would be incorrect as it never aired even 1 episode under/on the new network name.
Isn't it important that the last Network a show aired on be displayed on all shows active or inactive?
Also what happens if next week, next month, next year or sometime a person/member comes along and sees the invalid network and says to themselves the person that added this network had no clue what they were doing I will correct it now but it looks like i need to add that network to the site first and changes it to the correct network?
In closing regardless of the archive reason(s) I believe when a show last aired on a Network that is not here that it should be added to the site and show on that show in question?
note: no caps, no cussing, no rudeness, no demands, I am not upset, I am only making a point on why your policy (or proposed policy) should in my personal opinion be re looked at again please?
Thank you very much for your kind assistance in this matter, Ron, 11/09/2015 11:19 PM

This is a rather complex situation, I would like to wait for david or jan to solve this :)

cheers
Juan

Tonks wrote:
No, I'm not, Jaguar. I just wrote "show" instead of network at the beginning, my mistake.
I'm saying what should be on a network page... When it lauched, when it disappeared and why. You can then create the other network without a problem. Is that clearer for you ?

I think so now thanks!

I can't seem to find the thread where we had many discussions about Networks like Disney, Nickelodeon and ESPN where shows constantly change from one of their Network to another and seem to be constantly changing. This one looks close enough for now to ask 1 question as I do not believe any of us ever mentioned this possibility or asked this question but if it was brought up and then shot down sorry I asked again as I think i am having a BIG Senior Moment?

Anyways I want to ask if this would be at all a possible solution to those rotating Networks? Would it at all be possible to add a new additional line to the add episode screen something like "Network airs on"? It would automatically show "Default" to have it air on the show page Network however if the one episode in question airs on a different Network we would be able to click on a drop down menu box to select another, correct Network?

Could this be programmed, would it be too much work to program, would it mess up any historical data?

I think you're talking about this thread.

If you read the posts again, you'll see that the current system isn't capable of setting the network on episode level, so we should stay to the policy for now, but that it can happen in the future :-)