Talk:Nickelodeon/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Nickelodeon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Programming Block

I have to say I find it odd that there is no mention of SNICK under the programming section. Other cancelled blocks are listed, yet their first big break into the tween market is not? At the least there should be some mention in TEENick paragraph. More so I think the first paragraph of the SNICK page should be added under the programming block. --Lab Dragon (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ren and Stimpy cancellation reason somewhat incorrect

Actually, there are many more credible sources that state that Ren and Stimpy creator John Kristfalusi was actually fired for delivering episodes too late and idealogical tension between John and a few of Nick's executive producers. The sole reason lbeing listed as "inappropriate comment" not only is incorrect, but also gives off a biased nature to it, as well. A little research (Commentary on The Ren and Stimpy Show DVD, to name only one such account) gives a much clearer reasoning that is much closer to the truth than the generic and poorly cited reason on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.242.41.219 (talk) 07:53, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

That was my addition, and I confess that I don't know much about the situation. While looking for a reliable source for why Ren and Stimpy was cancelled, I found this Wired interview with Kristfalusi in which they say "This is, after all, the guy who was dismissed from Ren and Stimpy after producing an episode that ended with a character being savagely beaten with a boat oar." I summarised that reason into simply "inappropriate content". I don't have access to the DVDs, but if you want to use that source to flesh out the reasons behind Kristfalusi's dismissal, feel free. Kweeket 08:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Archive

Archive 1 has been created with a link at above right. Archive 2, when needed in the future, should be a new page (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Nickelodeon (TV channel)/archive2" and the link added to the template on this page's code. Some of the prior talk pages (notably Archive 1) may also have used the refactoring method of talk page management. To view other archived talk pages follow these steps: Click on the archive page. 2. Click on the "History" tab at the top of that page. 3. Click on any date that you wish. That's all you have to do. You will be taken to Wiki's archived talk page for that date. To find the very first talk pages, click on the "Earliest" link at the bottom of the "History" page and scroll down to the links at the bottom of the page. Permission is granted to copy this notice for use on other Talk pages. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. Thank you. Rawboard 03:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is why I don't agree with the move method of archiving; it destroys the history of the main section. In any case, thanks for archiving it. -- RattleMan 04:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo nicktoons.gif

Image:Logo nicktoons.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 05:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Declining Quality?

Should it be added? I have in several place(don't remember, but im sure i can find them on google.) I personally feel like this is true.Yeyosmoka21

yes, the ratings have clearly slipped, along with critical praise and support. nickelodeon is very obviously in decline and it should be noted.

No. This is an opinion and does not give appropriate information about the subject. SergeantLuke

I really think the priority to should be fixing the existing article instead of adding any more, there's plenty that could be removed really. Just look at the international section. Everett3 (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

there should be a section for programming

Let's face it, most of it's modern shows ain't that great (exept for Sponge-Bob). So we should have a section on programming: past, present, and future. So people can learn about it's better, older shows. Like: Doug, Ren & Stimpy, Invader Zim, and Hey Arnold! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.121.47 (talk) 01:31, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I'm start a programming section. Can some of you help me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.121.47 (talk) 01:34, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Might work better as a separate article. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality of the Article

The article is a mess. There are mistakes everywhere. Sections are incomplete, and the way it is written is way off. I'll put {{underconstruction}} and {{inuse}} for this page. It desperately needs work. Dylanlip (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Renaming this article

During the last few days, this article was moved back and forth between " Nickelodeon (TV channel)" and "Nickelodeon (cable channel)". Could someone make up their mind and determine the correct name for this article? -- azumanga (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Split request for Nick.com

Honestly, if Disney Channel has a page for their website, shouldn't Nick have one? I'm requesting we start the article over from scratch. Jonathan 01:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick.com was nominated for deletion on 18 June 2007. The result of the discussion was merge and redirect to Nickelodeon. The answer is No. Macy's 123 ^{(review me)} 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick on Telemundo

Nick on Telemundo began in 1999 on weekday morning with shows such as Rugrats,Doug,Aaahh Real Monsters,Hey Arnold and Rocko's Modern Life, in 2000 Nick on Telemundo move to weekend mornings, in 2001 the block was dropped from the network, in 2004 nickelodeon shows would return to the network and in 2006 nickelodeon shows would be removed from the network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powergate92 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nickelodeon

Should we mention here that Canada's Shaw Cable and Rogers Cable are jointly applying to the CRTC to carry this network (along with TNT, USA Network, and Cartoon Network? As well, Nickelodeon is carried universally on Caribbean cable systems (usually with YTV and Cartoon Network). RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 13:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should mention the Canadian situation. As for the Caribbean, the problem with that is that some systems carry the American version and some offer the Latin American version, with the soundtrack appropriate to the country. Comment? -- azumanga (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

H20

Someone add H20: Just Add Water to the TEENick Templete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.232.65 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked nicely... Its done :-) TheProf - T / C 19:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.232.56 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

i like it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.200.148 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

wow the titanic

i like that u showed the titanic but how did u get the picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.251.106 (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

International Pressence of nickelodeon

List of countries where Nickelodeon is present is given with the year of introduction. Please complete the information where necessary and required.

1979 - USA
19?? - UK
19?? - Australia
19?? - Austria
19?? - China
19?? - France
19?? - Germany
19?? - India
19?? - Italy
19?? - Israel
19?? - Japan
19?? - Korea
19?? - Netherlands
2000? - New Zealand
19?? - Poland
19?? - Portugal
19?? - Scandinavia
19?? - Spain
19?? - Russia
19?? - Turkey
19?? - ?????

etc

122.163.40.144 (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe Nickelodeon NZ first had Nickelodeon in 2000 using the Nickelodeon South East Asia english broadcast. It then became its own channel in 2006.

Merge Proposal

I'm proposing to merge Pinwheel (TV channel) into Nickelodeon (TV channel). Do you agree? 72.76.181.118 (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Rock On!

Already done, as all the Pinwheel info in its own article is already covered by the Nick article. -- azumanga (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Why

Why did you remove the part about Nickelodeon making it so only American Cartoons are allowed on their channel.

--76.233.110.136 (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can show where a company official made that statement, then there is no proof of its veracity. --Mhking (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cruise

I heard that the stars from Nick TV shows are on the cruise. Is this true? 71.182.145.40 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Nickelodeon has recieved a large amount of critiscm from it's early fans due to the fact that the channel does not air the earlier shows very much and have moved on to new shows.There are a large amount of rants about Nick today contained on Youtube with fans expressing there wishes to have old Nickelodeon shows revived and put on a separate channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.90.234 (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Those complaints are unjustified, and nearly all of the people who use them are average members of YouTube (and YouTube videos are NOT reliable sources). A TV channel HAS to rotate out old shows, or else there would be no room for new ones.

Still alot of times a network will take out good old shows and put in new crappy shows. The network usually ends up with nothing good then you quit watching altogether. Its better to preserve an old but a good show instead of replacing it with new show that sucks. Many good shows and bad shows alike have ended like this. Pyrolord777 (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeat vandal

141.156.252.234 (An IP adress) has been adding sexual content to Danny Phantom pages. I have reverted both edits that he ahs made as of yet.. Just thought you should know. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you report him as well. You can use the link below to do so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Abuse_response Pyrolord777 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pinwheellogo1.gif

The image Image:Pinwheellogo1.gif 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. --09:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Nick.com: Section or split?

This is likely taking it too far, but I feel we need community consensus on what to do here. The Nick.com article has been nominated for deletion, merged, recreated, remerged, and onward. Some users feel that since Nicktropolis and TurboNick (both hosted by Nick.com), then its host (Nick.com) should have an article, too. Some more feel that Nick.com has had a history separate than that of the channel (it obviously was not started in 1978, but you get the point) and, again, should have its own article. Also, yet even more users feel that since there is an article about Disney.com, then there should be an article on Nick.com.

Some users believe in the exact opposite of the last three statements, so this has been disputed (at latest) since mid-2007. That is why I am filing an RfC so maybe we can have a consensus on this long-term dispute. Thank you. Jonathan (talk • contribs • am I wrong?) 18:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion archived

Split - I am a supporter of all three statements. Here is a set of questions to people who oppose the three statements: if Disney has an article about their website, why can't Nick.com have a website? Nick.com's hosted sites have articles, so why can't Nick.com have an article? Nick.com has a completely different history from Nickelodeon, so why can't Nick.com have an article? My case is closed. Jonathan (talk • contribs • am I wrong?) 18:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Against - If there is enough written for "Nick.com" (to the point where it takes up too much space on this article), then split. But otherwise, looking at the length of the section in question, I am opposed to splitting at this moment. If there was more there beyond a couple of short paragraphs, I would support a split. ThePointblank (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - We would probably want to rewrite the article if this comes out as a split, anyways. It'd have enough content to not be a stub, probably. Jonathan (talk • contribs • am I wrong?) 16:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - Nick.com is clearly more than a supplement to the TV channel, thus has its own history etc that needs to be covered in detail. This can only be done on a page of its own. Pretzels^Talk! 08:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Split - As per above, Nick.com is not a part of Nickelodeon and does not share the same history as the TV channel. However, a section on Nick.com could possibly be created under the page List of assets owned by Viacom, where Viacom is the owner of it. Acs4b ^{T C U} 15:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Question. Is there more content ready for the new article if it is split out. If so, is it all backed up by reliable independent sources? Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - We would have to use a sandbox to write the article first, then move it. This is assuming that this goes through. TNP (formerly Jonathan) 17:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a few sources that might help the article (in no particular order):

There should be enough to write an article about Nick.com including sections on History, Reception and Design. I'm going to say Support. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Support as well per Bill above. I'm not big on dot com's like this having their own entry, but if it has it's own little world separate of it's TV counterpart (ESPN.com has their own article, as do several other websites of TV networks). If the website adds to the parent television network, then it should get its own website, as opposed to TV station websites that are there mearly to provide info on a station. User:MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 01:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Result of discussion almost unanimously Split. A sandbox is located here for work on the new article. Please don't bring back the old article, it's obviously going to be redirected again if we bring back the verison that started it all. -phobia don't be afraid to drop me a line! 02:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Nickelodeon (2004)

... does not appear to justify having its own article. Merge suggested. PamD (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Split suggestion

What about split this article into Nickelodeon (MTV Networks) (The general Nickelodeon business) and Nickelodeon (US TV channel) (The Nick channel)? The article is too long. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 14:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a need at this time to do that. The work should be concentrated on filling out the sections in this article, some of which are ridiculously small being just one sentence long (or simply just a link to another page). This article is no way too long, it's just oversectioned. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Really early history of Nickelodeon/Pinwheel

I'm not adding this to the article because I was seven years old at the time and my memory is somewhat faulty, but perhaps someone else can corroborate this...

When Qube was launched in 1977, I believe Nickelodeon and Pinwheel were separate channels in the C section (Qube had three channel groups, "P"remium for PPV movies, "C"ommunity for mostly local special interest channels and "T"elevision for broadcast channels). Pinwheel was programming for preschoolers, and Nickelodeon ran silent movies. In an early channel realignment, I believe the two channels were combined, so that Pinwheel ran in the morning and afternoon, then Nickelodeon took over in the evening. This is before Nickelodeon had anything that could remotely be called "programming"...it was a seemingly random playlist of silent shorts and filler bits featuring a male mime and accompanied by piano music.

The history also suggests why the channel was called "Nickelodeon".

RideMan (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Logos

If anyone would like to discuss the old logos being removed from this article please do it at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#NFCC #8 and #3 are critically important. Powergate92Talk 02:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The new logo is public domain as it is in typeface, so I readded it to the article. Powergate92Talk 00:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems accurate. J Milburn (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Add the images?

Is it possible to add the images of the sister networks in their sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.66.81 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the logos, I don't really see what knowing what a logo looks like would add. Wikipedia uses non-free content (such as copyrighted logos) very conservatively- see our non-free content guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So, you're telling me to add the logos?--68.37.66.81 (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm definitely not. J Milburn (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Old Nick Show

Okay, so I was remember reading books when I was little about a Nickelodeon show. It had something like Alex in it's title. It was about a girl who got doused in a compound that gave her special powers (i.e. the power to turn into a liquid) and is now being chased by the government. If anyone could help me find this, I'd be SO happy! ThanksOh, so this doesn't get removed, this would help the article to, adding this show! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.40.12 (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is called The Secret World of Alex Mack. Please try to keep discussion about specific issues about this article. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry! Just been wondering for YEARS and this seemed the ideal place to find out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.40.12 (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ytv

under "see also" this article has a link to ytv that ends @ a disambiguation page. I'd fix it myself, but I actually DON'T KNOW to which ytv the creater of the intralink intended to refer.Slarty2 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is strange

The upcoming Nickelodeon, TeenNick, Nicktoons and Nick Jr. logos, their font is in the same font in the "N" in the current The N logo. -annoynmus 9/21/2009 7:17 AM EST

Actually, the "N" in the former "The N" logo is much taller than the Nickelodeon logo. 24.183.52.110 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Nickelodeon logo

Looks like orange jizz to me.

                  -anonaymus  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.86.195.32 (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

I believe this page should be moved to Nickelodeon (US TV channel). NewYorkCity101 (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Channel to be brodcasted in Canada

I saw a comercial advertising that the Nick channels are coming to canada.142.162.51.86 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the station changed its name from "Pinwheel" to "Nickelodeon" in 1979, not 1981

I believe that the assertion in the article that the station was called "Pinwheel" from 1977-81 is incorrect. I believe it was rebranded in 1979, as soon as it expanded from the QUBE system in Columbus.

I have found several newspaper articles from 1979 that talk about the new children's network "Nickelodeon", and it is very expressly stated that the channel is not called "Pinwheel".

Here's an article from 1979 that address this: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3L8wAAAAIBAJ&sjid=x1EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5813,4780509&dq=buffalo+nickelodeon+cable&hl=en

What is the source for the 1981 rebranding date mentioned in the Wiki article? I can find evidence that the service changed in 1981 to add the ARTS programming block in the evening, but it appears that it was called "Nickelodeon" the whole time.

A number of things need to be checked and clarified about the early years of the station. Thoughts? 74.72.204.239 (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To add to the above (I wasn't signed in - this is the same person as above) - I checked some articles and it's fairly clear that the April 1981 date refers to the addition of the ARTS station and the network's official launch happened some time before. I corrected the dates and cleaned up some of the copy in the section on the early years. Censoria95 (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Very Strange

In a section of the Nickelodeon article, it reads "On October 21, 2009, it was announced that Nickelodeon secured the rights to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles franchise from Mirage Studios. The network plans to develop a new CGI-animated TMNT television series and will partner with fellow Viacom company Paramount Pictures to bring a new TMNT movie to theaters. Both are expected for 2011." The new TMNT series and a new TMNT movie will be released in 2012, not 2011.

15:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty thinks these new tmnt movie and show released in 2011 is not vandalism.

21:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.22.226 (talk)

There should be a section for Criticism

I have been on IMDB message boards for several Nickelodeon shows & cartoons, and I see that many fans have been criticising the dire quality Nickelodeon's programming and that they don't show the "old shows" such as the original Rugrats series, Hey Arnold, Kenan & Kel, etc. which were produced in the 1990s. There are also at least 9 petitions on PetitionOnline.com asking to bring back shows from the 1990s. And there also many other internet forums and fan websites dedicated to the classic shows. So I think that there should be section in this article about the fans' criticism of Nickelodeon's decline in the quality of programming.Kieranthompson

Don't forget Invader Zim. Nick took some heavy criticism for taking that show off.

Hell Yeah I still Hate them with Great intensity for them taking Zim off - Bladez636

Yes there should be a spot for criticism, This channel crashed after 1998. - Rodkill229 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadkill229 (talk • contribs) 13:59, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Suggested something similar on a certain competitor's talk page...provided that it doesn't turn into a soapbox or vandal hangout. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Provided that the criticism is verifiable and justified, and, as "WAVY 10 Fan" mentioned, doesn't become a vandal magnet, I'm all for it. -- azumanga 04:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find RELIABLE criticism from professional sources, then a criticism section would work. What WOULDN'T work is a bunch of butthurt fans using Wikipedia to bitch and moan. This is an encyclopedia, folks. SergeantLuke

I Think So To Because I Hate The New Logo!It Is Not As Good As Before But At Least There Is Still SpongeBob SquarePants 23:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyo pixar girl (talk • contribs)

No, there shouldn't be a section for criticism, because the only people who criticize Nick are adults. Nick is a network for KIDS, and they don't need to try and please adults by bringing back the 90's shows or whatever. The network is doing just fine the way it is, and kids today like it. That's all that matters to Nick. There's no point in criticizing something that doesn't apply to you. Nickelodeonfan2007 (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there SHOULD be a section for criticism. Only adults complaining about nickelodeon?.... may I inform you that it is ADULTS who decide what is good for our children and take it from the ADULTS that were lucky enough to be a part of a decade when Nickelodeon used to be full of quality programming that actually taught kids valuable life lessons in many different creative ways. It's a fact that shows on Nick these days have very little, if any, quality to them. It's not just about bringing back the nostalgia of the 90s that many of young adults today yearn for, but it's also about bringing back Nickelodeons sense of quality programming that provide real creativity while teaching life lessons to young kids.

user:Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.153.135 (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Logo

Please put the other pic ov Nickelodeon on. "Nick" may be misleading. if u try 2 look up nick on wiki, it don't cum up.The Legend of G (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks.The Legend of G (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC) There was a version of the logo I found at: http://web.mac.com/mcdannell/Site/work/Entries/2008/8/7_The_Nickelodeon_Splat_files/shapeimage_7.png . 1:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please try to use proper grammar, no one takes you seiriouly when you use bad grammer.WikiChicken81112 (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If the new Nickelodeon logo was to be implemented on September 28, then why is it not seen in Nickelodeon India? Is it only for the USA-based Nickelodeon channel? Souwrit.ray (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the Logo from 1981-1984? Since the logo was recently changed the article should address all of it's previous logos and provide pictures. There use to be a pic of the 1981-84 logo. What the hell happened to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.185.218 (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.131.185.117, 29 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} (Addition to Early History) With the advent of pay-TV services of the late 70's such as HBO, Showtime or The Movie Channel now being offered nightly over microwave systems in areas not yet served by cable, it is important to note that the Pinwheel and Nickelodeon channels were often paired with these channels in order to provide daytime programming and increase sales.

As the pay-TV channels in those days only aired programming between 4 pm and midnight during the week and from noon to 2AM on the weekends, the addition of Pinwheel/Nickelodeon drove sales for the movie channels due to the fact that the family-oriented fare aired on Nickelodeon was a vast improvement over the likes of Voltron or other action-adventure series, and it was commercial-free besides. 71.131.185.117 (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In addition to needing a reliable source for that info, the final sentence is POV ("a vast improvement over the likes of Voltron"), and so couldn't be added in any regard.

Edit request from 24.215.190.29, 23 December 2010

Eric Zim rebranded Nickelodeon, creating all their new logos and their new look and feel. Trollback only produced the on-air graphics.

24.215.190.29 (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done You need a reliable reference to verify your statements. Chevy monte carlo 22:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Request

I think we should add on the bar where the Nick logo is that the company was founded in <Columbus, Ohio>, so people know it was established there more quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.54.64 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, it is not based in Ohio. Nickelodeon is based in New York City. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Large block of programming from '90-'97 is missing

I'm shocked that there is very little mention of any of the sitcom programming from 1990 to 1995. The Adventures of Pete and Pete, Hey Dude, The Secret World of Alex Mack, Space Cases, ETC. This could at least be done to reference some of the modern-day famous Hollywood names; (i.e, Christine Taylor, Jewel Staite, etc. If I have to , I'll learn to edit better and fix it myself^^ --Peter67.181.219.34 (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Sourcing

The introduction contains the sentence, "As of 2011, Nickelodeon is ranked as the #1 cable channel," and then cites to a source. That source, however, says merely that the channel is the #1 show on *basic cable with the 2-11 demographic. That is clearly and substantially different from what is written. --dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.111.233.78 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is the logo SO BIG?

All I can see is the N. It's obviously not supposed to be that huge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.233.204 (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted it myself. Must be due to vandalism. JJ98 (Talk) 09:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Improvment suggestions

There is suggetions to improve the article, altough it is not GA yet. This from Ruhrfisch's comments from the peer review.

A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Paramount Television Network is a FA and may be a useful model
The disambiguation links finder in the toolbox on this page shows several dab links and circular redirects that need to be fixed - see here
There are also at least two dead external links that need to be fixed
Biggest problem I see is that there are many places that need references but do not have them. For example the second and fifth paragraphs of the Relaunch as Nickelodeon and national expansion (1979–1990) section do not have any refs and need them. Other paragraphs have a ref followed by one or more sentences that are not referenced - these sentences need refs too. The Movies and Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards sections have no refs at all. This would be cause for a quick fail at GAN or FAC
My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Many of the references given are incomplete and do not have all the reuired data. Some Internet refs are just bare URLs, but they need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Make sure the sources used meet WP:RS - for example, what makes fredalan.org a reliable source?
Make sure the See also links follow WP:See also - generally this is for links not already in the article
Headers need to follow WP:HEAD
Use of bold text needs to follow WP:ITALIC
Language could use a copyedit in places - one example In 1990, Nickelodeon opened Nickelodeon Studios, a television studio/attraction at Universal Studios Florida in Orlando which many of its sitcoms and game shows were filmed and entered into a multimillion-dollar joint marketing agreement with international restaurant chain Pizza Hut, which provided Nickelodeon Magazine for free at participating Pizza Hut restaurants (which was put on hiatus for three years).[11] This is a run on sentence and should be split. It is also unclear what the antecednt of which is - what went on hiatus? When did the three years start?
The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections which interrupt the narrative flow. WHere possible, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded
Focus on the article topic - Sister channels seems to go into way too much detail
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Feel free to improve the article. enjoy. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No reason

the page says on July 5,2011 will be a qubo/nickelodeon block. Proof is needed to know that will happen July 5,2011.Canihuan300 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Today is July 5, 2011 and Nickelodeon is still airing so you don't need proof anymore. Canihuan300 (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nick News bi-monthly fail

Bi-monthly is inherently confusing. It should say either "twice a month" or "once every two months" for clarity.67.190.86.13 (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC) You really think people are to stupid to figure out Bi-monthly? I think its pretty clear...

File:Teennick logo.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Teennick logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Move to Nickelodeon

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nickelodeon (TV channel) → Nickelodeon – Primary topic. This article has 199,820 hits back in July and it is the most popular children's television channel like Disney Channel. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. While a big fan of the cable channel, I do lament that it's considered the primary meaning of the word these days. That said, the disparity in pageviews is overwhelming. Powers ^T 14:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. Clear primary topic, as shown by page views. Jenks24 (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment; this probably should have been set up as a multimove, since the disambiguation page will also need to be moved. In lieu of that, I've notified Talk:Nickelodeon (the disambiguation talk page) of this discussion. Powers ^T 15:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. I have done many hundreds of DAB fixes for Nickelodeon, and the overwhelming majority of them (back of the napkin, over 99%) meant to point to the television channel. That plus a comparison of the page hits leaves no question in my mind that this move should be done. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 14 August 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of Nickelodeon Shows (1991-1999)

List of Old School Nick Shows _____________________________ 100 Deeds for McDowd Aaahh!!! Real Monsters A Walk In Your Shoes The Amanda Show The Angry Beavers Are You Afraid of the Dark? All That Amby & Dexter Animorphs (TV series) Bananaman Beetlejuice (TV series) Blues Clues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.78.244 (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add more. Nick stopped being good in 1999. --71.74.87.105 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Book references

I found a few references myself, there are book references to improve the article:

Hendershot, Heather (2004). Nickelodeon Nation: The History, Politics, and Economics of America's Only TV Channel for Kids. New York City: New York University Press. ISBN 0814736521.
Banet-Weiser, Sarah (2007). Kids rule!: Nickelodeon and consumer citizenship. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. ISBN 0822339935.

JJ98 (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

jukebox?

why no mention at the top of the page that a nickelodeon originally referred to a jukebox and a link to the relevant page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.187.2 (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Because, a couple of weeks ago someone changed the note at the top to point to Nick (disambiguation) instead of Nickelodeon (disambiguation). I've changed it back. Powers ^T 19:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

I'm in an edit war with a dude called JohnInDC and he keeps on reverting the edit I do and he leaves no summary at all.This is very annoying to endure.194.46.247.29 (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You are a blocked user who is evading his block through the use of IP addresses. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Davebrayfb/Archive. As such you are not entitled to edit the encyclopedia at all, and your edits may be - and should be - reverted on sight. See this table. JohnInDC (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we at least have the edit up :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.247.29 (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

National anthems on Nick!!??

When I watch Nickelodeon in the 80s, I heard the two national anthems and saw the national flags waving during the sign off of the station. 99.229.41.79 (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of the 2009 Relaunch

After the relaunch of Nick on September 28,2009,many long time fans of the channel began critizing the network due to the relaunch,the new shows not being as good as the old shows,having many shows coming and going alot,and the new bumpers.There should be a section on the Nickelodeon page called "Criticism of Nickelodeon and Declining Quality".Although this isn't the first time the channel was given the blame for something,it is a major example of criticism of Nickelodeon. --24.147.1.197 (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)by Jacob Chesley--24.147.1.197 (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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 not moved. --BDD (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Nickelodeon → Nickelodeon (television network) – Back in 2011, a consensus was reached that the article about the Nickelodeon television network be the focus of the Wikipedia article titled "Nickelodeon". I am suggesting this name change due to the fact that when the word "nickelodeon" made its first appearance, it meant something far different than the name of a television network. I don't care how popular or mainstream the network is deemed to be. Sure, the article on the network may have more hits, but look at the topics named "Engelbert Humperdinck" and "The Four Seasons". The pages on Engelbert Humperdinck the singer and the band The Four Seasons I'm assuming are more visited than those on Engelbert Humperdinck the composer and The Four Seasons concerti by Vivaldi, respectively. But the article on the singer is not just named with just the name, and the one on the band is not just named with the name of the band. Therefore (in addition to this page move request), I suggest that there ought to be some sort of disambiguation page, or that the article with the title "Nickelodeon" be focused on the movie theater rather than the television network, with a reference at the top saying something like "for the modern television network, see Nickelodeon (television network)". 69.121.17.200 (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Since there is a disambiguation link already given at the top of the article, I feel it as an unnecessary move..Hence Oppose Herald talk with me 15:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I feel like people who type in the word "nickelodeon" probably want the network. That would make this article a primary topic. So strong oppose. Red Slash 16:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Support the move and making the nickel theatres (the only nickelodeons prior to 1979) the primary topic. The television network could be renamed tomorrow (as it was in 1979), but the early cinemas will remain nickelodeons forever. The original nickelodeon is also a more important topic for an encyclopedia. When I search for nickelodeon + britannica on Google, the motion picture theatre comes up first, even though Britannica has an article on the television network. I presume that's because when people want an encyclopedic treatment, they are looking for the early theatre. The current setup makes Wikipedia a go-to source for contemporary pop culture, but not so much for the history of cinema. Both of these topic areas are legitimate, but one is more important. —Srnec (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Support Per the very cogent words of User:Srnec, explaining in simple words wp:primarytopic: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". Emphasis not added. Emphasis that could be added would be upon words like "enduring notability" and "educational value". ¨^walk victor falk^talk 12:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
TV network? Unreal7 (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as unnecessary and already catered for via disambiguation link at head of article. As far as "long-term significance" goes, nickelodeon movie theatres enjoyed their primary period of importance, according to the article, from "1905 to 1913". About eight years - less than a quarter of the period of time for which the television network has existed. For both current and long-term significance, the television network wins. Now if this were a debate about whether the 'Oxygen' article should cover the very popular chemical element, or the cable channel, clearly the channel would not win, since actual oxygen has genuine and substantial long-term and current significance. But a specialist type of movie theatre which was popular for less than a decade more than a century ago, and not since? I'd have a hard time supporting that. And I'd elect to oppose the proposed move for that reason. Bonusballs (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The movie theatre is hardly "specialist" and the duration of the popularity says nothing about their long-term significance. This response represents a failure to respond to the actual arguments. Srnec (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The movie theatre is hardly "specialist"
While nickelodeons were mainstream in their heyday, they're very much a specialist subject today. I studied film history and have a keen interest in old-time movie theaters, but I'm well aware that most people hearing the word "Nickelodeon" will think of the TV channel. Heck, even I would.
and the duration of the popularity says nothing about their long-term significance.
It isn't the sole factor, but I don't understand how you can dismiss it as irrelevant. Nickelodeons played a non-trivial role in the development of cinema, but they didn't remain a part of everyday life for long and don't receive a great deal of attention (even from a historical perspective). "Long-term significance" describes a situation in which something remains prominent over an extended period, not one in which it simply existed earlier and wasn't forgotten entirely.
This response represents a failure to respond to the actual arguments.
Some of them, such as the nominator's argument that "the word 'nickelodeon' made its first appearance" in the cinematic context and your argument that a "pop culture" topic should be deemed less important, have no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —David Levy 16:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Your argument that a "pop culture" topic should be deemed less important, have no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
It does have a basis in policy, as Victor Falk pointed out above, to quote: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". Pop culture subjects generally have less enduring notablility and less educational value. After all, Nickelodeon has its own website people can visit.
Most people hearing the word "Nickelodeon" will think of the TV channel.
Probably, but that's because they're American. This argument has no basis in policy. Srnec (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It does have a basis in policy, as Victor Falk pointed out above, to quote...
Again, you're quoting a guideline that I helped to write.
Pop culture subjects generally have less enduring notablility and less educational value.
That's an overly broad statement. In the "oxygen" example, a chemical element essential to the sustenance of most living organisms obviously has far greater long-term significance than a TV channel does. The situation at hand is vastly different, as an obsolete and relatively obscure type of motion picture venue is hardly a fundamental part of our existence. We don't allow a topic's current popularity to outweigh all other considerations, but we don't hold it against the subject either.
After all, Nickelodeon has its own website people can visit.
Is your point that Wikipedia's readers can simply go there instead?
Probably, but that's because they're American.
Huh? The cinemas known as "nickelodeons" were a primarily American concept, while the TV channel has versions in numerous countries.
This argument has no basis in policy.
It has a basis in the guideline that we've been discussing. "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." —David Levy 20:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Is your point that Wikipedia's readers can simply go there instead?
No, my point was that we have more "educational value" when we are not redundant. A Wikipedia article that is entirely composed of information gleaned from other publicly accessible websites (and that links to them) is not at all useless, but it is less useful than an article that is based on print sources that are harder to access or websites that required a subscription.
I think you misunderstand the guideline. You wrote I'm well aware that most people hearing the word "Nickelodeon" will think of the TV channel. and then quoted the guideline, A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. What you think of when you hear X is not the same thing as what you are seeking when you search for X. I am ready to believe that most people are looking for the TV channel. I am not prepared to concede either that the overwhelming majority of users are, or that page view statistics are a relevant indicator. Srnec (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
No, my point was that we have more "educational value" when we are not redundant. A Wikipedia article that is entirely composed of information gleaned from other publicly accessible websites (and that links to them) is not at all useless, but it is less useful than an article that is based on print sources that are harder to access or websites that required a subscription.
That argument has absolutely nothing to do with the guideline, wherein the phrase "educational value" is used in reference to the topic, not Wikipedia's coverage thereof.
You're inventing a criterion out of whole cloth. And it's highly illogical, as it often would lead us to favor relatively obscure subjects over those that predominate in the real world (and as a result, online). That's precisely what you want us to do in this instance.
I think you misunderstand the guideline.
Again, you're telling me that I misunderstand a guideline that I helped to write.
You wrote "I'm well aware that most people hearing the word 'Nickelodeon' will think of the TV channel." and then quoted the guideline, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." What you think of when you hear X is not the same thing as what you are seeking when you search for X.
You're deconstructing these statements to the point of absurdity. I'm addressing readers' relative familiarity with the subjects. Far more people are aware of the TV channel's existence, so readers typing "Nickelodeon" are far more likely to seek information about it than about a type of motion picture venue of which they probably have never heard.
I am ready to believe that most people are looking for the TV channel. I am not prepared to concede either that the overwhelming majority of users are, or that page view statistics are a relevant indicator.
But you are prepared to "presume [that when] people want an encyclopedic treatment, they are looking for the early theatre", based solely on the fact that "when [you] search for nickelodeon + britannica on Google, the motion picture theatre comes up first". —David Levy 22:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, you're telling me that I misunderstand a guideline that I helped to write.
There is no reason you can't misunderstand what you helped to write.
You're deconstructing these statements to the point of absurdity.
You're just not being careful.
The phrase "educational value" is used in reference to the topic, not Wikipedia's coverage thereof.
I know. I have been clear about what I think of the topics. I am inclined to agree with you that I equivocated.
But you are prepared to presume ... based solely on the fact that ...
No, not "based solely based on that fact". I reasoned the other way. To explain the search results I hypothesised a cause. Srnec (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason you can't misunderstand what you helped to write.
Your interpretation of the "long-term significance" criterion contradicts the concepts discussed when it was written (when its wording and the underlying rationales were analyzed extensively).
You're just not being careful.
You're just being pedantic.
No, not "based solely based on that fact". I reasoned the other way. To explain the search results I hypothesised a cause.
I'm baffled as to what distinction you seek to draw. You noticed a Google search result and reasoned — with no corroborating evidence or consideration of results from competing search engines or the actual encyclopedia's internal search tool — that it reflected a particular expectation on the part of readers. Are you noting that you didn't have the idea in mind beforehand? If so, why would that even matter (let alone affect the accuracy of my statement that your presumption was "based solely on" the aforementioned Google search result)?
I also struggle to understand how you can regard such a conclusion as valid while deeming Wikipedia's page view statistics (and by extension, the hypothesised cause) irrelevant. —David Levy 00:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The distinction is between getting a result and asking "Why might the result be this?", and getting a result and say "This shows that ____." My reasoning was abductive. I am noting precisely that I did have the idea beforehand. That's why it seemed like a reasonable explanation. I think the page view stats show that this article is what people want, but in what numbers? They do not let us know how many folks (a) got here by internal links or (b) were looking for something else and gave up. And the guideline you helped write does not tell us whether to privilege usage or long-term significance. This Ngram compares "nickelodeon" and its plural with "Nickelodeon". It shows that it wasn't until 1994 that the combined result of the two lower-case nickelodeons was less than the results for the upper case Nickelodeon. Srnec (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I am noting precisely that I did have the idea beforehand.
Why is this relevant? If anything, it introduces the possibility of confirmation bias.
That's why it seemed like a reasonable explanation.
Perhaps I've misunderstood. Are you defending your presumption, or are you conceding the point and explaining why you erred?
I think the page view stats show that this article is what people want, but in what numbers?
In 2012, the Nickelodeon page was viewed 1,154,818 times. The redirects Nickelodeon (TV channel) and Nickelodeon (TV Channel) (which the case-insensitive stats.grok.se treats as one and the same) collectively received an additional 351,733 views. Ignoring the dozens of other redirects (which would require too much effort to include), this totals 1,506,551 views. Meanwhile, Nickelodeon (disambiguation) received 27,912 views, which I'll subtract from the article's total (based on the generous assumption that every disambiguation page view followed an accidental Nickelodeon view). That leaves 1,478,639 views.
During the same period, Nickelodeon (movie theater) and its redirects received a combined 90,173 views. Let's throw in the combined 38,276 views received by Nickelodeon (film) and its one redirect, along with Nickelodeon (disambiguation)'s 27,912 views (despite the fact that some of both articles' visitors arrived via that page, so they're being counted twice), bringing us to a grand total of 156,361 views — well under 1/9 the number of views received by the Nickelodeon article (with most of its redirects not even counted, all disambiguation page views deducted, and no consideration of the views received by the numerous related articles).
Heck, the pair of Nickelodeon redirects that I did count (Nickelodeon (TV channel) and Nickelodeon (TV Channel)) received more than twice the page views of Nickelodeon (disambiguation), Nickelodeon (movie theater), Nickelodeon (film) and all of their redirects combined.
They do not let us know how many folks (a) got here by internal links
Please elaborate.
or (b) were looking for something else and gave up.
If you believe that this occurs to a significant extent (let alone one that might come close to accounting for the aforementioned disparity in page views), you essentially assert that our navigational hatnote system is fundamentally broken.
If that's the case, moving the movie theater article to the base title (as you advocate) would lead far more readers (those seeking the TV channel's article, as you acknowledge "most people" are) to "give up".
And I'll remind you that this article was moved to its current title in 2011. In 2010, when it resided at Nickelodeon (TV channel), it was viewed 1,750,851 times (not counting any redirects). Meanwhile, Nickelodeon (movie theater) and its redirects received a combined 77,826 views, Nickelodeon (film) and its redirect received a combined 35,930 views, and the disambiguation page (located at Nickelodeon) received 192,212 views.
The disambiguation page's 85% reduction in views between 2010 and 2012 indicates that a vast majority of visitors to the base title sought the article about the TV channel (unless, as you postulate, they simply "gave up" instead of utilizing the hatnote).
And the guideline you helped write does not tell us whether to privilege usage or long-term significance.
That's because it depends on the situation (hence the need for discussions such as this one).
This Ngram compares "nickelodeon" and its plural with "Nickelodeon". It shows that it wasn't until 1994 that the combined result of the two lower-case nickelodeons was less than the results for the upper case Nickelodeon.
That search is confined to a corpus of English-language books (including works of fiction, wherein generic terms appear far more frequently than trademarks do), and it still shows the capitalized "Nickelodeon" predominating for about the past two decades. Imagine what a comparable search of newspapers and magazines would show. —David Levy 23:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I've misunderstood. Are you defending your presumption, or are you conceding the point and explaining why you erred?
I am not defending my presumption—although I think it was a reasonable one and may be true—but am explaining why I abduced the explanation I did. It's not confirmation bias so much as hypothesis bias. I prefer hypotheses that are in line with my assumptions. (As do we all, no?) We still don't know if my presumption was wrong, but as an explanation of the Google result it certainly looks very shaky.
Please elaborate.
Folks who got here by internal links were not necessarily searching for it. Their presence here could be explained by things other than a desire to learn more about Nickelodeon. What's more, the links can be fixed to point to the correct page. So those users who got here by internal links are unaffected by any page move. Only users who search for Nickelodeon using our internal function would be likely to be adversely affected.
You essentially assert that our navigational hatnote system is fundamentally broken.
I wonder sometimes. I do not know if non-Wikipedians (i.e., mere readers) regularly use them or just hit the back button to look at the Google results again. Your statistics on page views in 2010 are interesting. Since the dab page had only a fraction of the views that the channel's page had, it shows that most people got the latter probably either by internal link or Google search. I do not believe they were seriously hindered then or will be now. Unless my reasoning is in error, the stats do show that roughtly 85% of people who search for the term "nickelodeon" are indeed looking for the TV network, which is overwhelming. I will concede that point, although I think your stats buttress the argument that only a fraction of readers would be inconvenienced (although more than are now).
That's because it depends on the situation (hence the need for discussions such as this one).
Absolutely.
That search is confined to a corpus of English-language books (including works of fiction, wherein generic terms appear far more frequently than trademarks do), and it still shows the capitalized "Nickelodeon" predominating for about the past two decades.
I think the steady line for the lower-case nickelodeons is a good sign of their enduring notability. The capitalised Nickelodeon line is a spike. Do you expect it to level off, continue upwards or to decline? What do you expect the nickelodeon(s) lines to do?
I understand you are more concerned with getting people where they want to go. If that's the criterion we should be using then you are right. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not defending my presumption—although I think it was a reasonable one and may be true—
I disagree that the inference is reasonable, particularly when it's reached without checking Bing or the relevant website's internal search tool (which, as I noted, returned the two links in the opposite order). However, I don't doubt that you arrived at the presumption in good faith and without knowledge of any contradictory information.
but am explaining why I abduced the explanation I did. It's not confirmation bias so much as hypothesis bias.
That seems like a distinction without a difference. Confirmation bias "is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses."
I prefer hypotheses that are in line with my assumptions. (As do we all, no?)
Of course. But a sound hypothesis should accurately reflect the relevant information available, not evidence that's been cherry-picked and massaged to deliver the conclusion desired.
We still don't know if my presumption was wrong,
I'd be interested to read an argument as to why the aforementioned Google search outweighs this query.
but as an explanation of the Google result it certainly looks very shaky.
Agreed.
Folks who got here by internal links were not necessarily searching for it. Their presence here could be explained by things other than a desire to learn more about Nickelodeon.
I'm confused as to why someone arriving at the article via an internal link is less likely to seek information about the article's subject.
What's more, the links can be fixed to point to the correct page.
That's always the case.
So those users who got here by internal links are unaffected by any page move.
Even when a usage is not primary, editors often insert unpiped links (e.g. [[Nickelodeon]] instead of [[Nickelodeon (TV channel)|Nickelodeon]]) without checking where they lead. Those added in error persist until they're noticed and corrected (which is trickier than doing so en masse due to a page move). When a usage is primary, the likelihood is even greater. That's one of the reasons why primary topics occupy base titles.
Your statistics on page views in 2010 are interesting. Since the dab page had only a fraction of the views that the channel's page had, it shows that most people got the latter probably either by internal link or Google search.
There's no need to single out Google (as opposed to search engines in general), but yes, that's probably true (of this article and Wikipedia's articles in general).
I do not believe they were seriously hindered then or will be now.
By that logic, practically any page move could be justified.
No one asserts that the previous setup was bad (or that it would be now). The current one is simply better.
I think the steady line for the lower-case nickelodeons is a good sign of their enduring notability.
It's fairly safe to assume that nickelodeons are roughly as notable now as they were twenty years ago and fifty years ago. Given their longstanding obsolescence/disuse, there's little reason for that situation to change.
Maintaining the same level of obscurity (as opposed to becoming more obscure) isn't substantial enough to satisfy the "long-term significance" criterion. At the same time, I wouldn't argue that the TV channel prevails on this front, given its relative recentness. In this instance, I don't believe that the "long-term significance" criterion is applicable. That leaves the "usage" criterion, which clearly points to the TV channel.
The capitalised Nickelodeon line is a spike. Do you expect it to level off, continue upwards or to decline?
I can't predict the line's trajectory, but it seems likely that usage of "Nickelodeon" in reference to the TV channel and related entities will continue to predominate into the foreseeable future. If, at some point, these properties cease to exist and/or one or more other subjects with the same name come to be, the situation might change (and of course, Wikipedia can reevaluate its pages' titles in response to such shifts).
What do you expect the nickelodeon(s) lines to do?
As indicated above, I expect little fluctuation.
I understand you are more concerned with getting people where they want to go. If that's the criterion we should be using then you are right.
The matter has been debated (and you aren't the first to argue that we should favor subjects of greater "importance"), but "getting people where they want to go" remains our standard practice. —David Levy 02:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
But a sound hypothesis should accurately reflect the relevant information available, not evidence that's been cherry-picked and massaged to deliver the conclusion desired.
A hypothesis comes before testing. My hypothesis about the result was not based on the result. I did not test my hypothesis, but you did.
I'm confused as to why someone arriving at the article via an internal link is less likely to seek information about the article's subject.
Strictly speaking, they are not. The point was that the presence of the link explains why they got here, not anything external to Wikipedia (or internal to the reader). They clicked the link because it was there and they would not have visited Nickelodeon otherwise. The whole point was that page view statistics are not a transparent indicator of what readers are looking for, only of what they are looking at.
By that logic, practically any page move could be justified.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. My point was that under the previous setup few people had to go through the dab page. Under the current setup, same thing. By no means is that always the case in a requested move. Or are you saying that it is and I just haven't noticed? (Could be, I don't check page view stats very much.)
I don't believe that the "long-term significance" criterion is applicable.
I know. Your main reson seems to be that the intent behind the guideline was for it to apply to cases of more transient notability (than the cable channel). We are at an impasse regarding the criterion to use. I agree that the by the criterion you favour, we should keep this article where it is. Do you agree with me that if we judged the issue only by the long-term significance criterion, the theater would be the primary topic? Or do you you think there is no such primary topic?
Maintaining the same level of obscurity...
I would not have thought they were as obscure as you keep saying. Perhaps I am just out of touch.
You aren't the first to argue that we should favor subjects of greater "importance".
Wikipedia has always been in danger of being bogged down with pop culture. I think it's a systemic bias, but I have no problem with editors working in whatever areas they prefer. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
A hypothesis comes before testing.
I'm not criticising you for failing to test your hypothesis. I'm questioning its origins. (Well, I was, but I think that the matter has been clarified sufficiently.)
The point was that the presence of the link explains why they got here, not anything external to Wikipedia (or internal to the reader). They clicked the link because it was there and they would not have visited Nickelodeon otherwise. The whole point was that page view statistics are not a transparent indicator of what readers are looking for, only of what they are looking at.
If someone chooses to visit an article — whether by following an external link, following an internal link or utilizing Wikipedia's search box — it's reasonable to assume that he/she is interested in reading and/or editing it. (Exceptions doubtlessly exist, but they surely arise throughout the encyclopedia and shouldn't impact statistical comparisons to a significant extent.)
Whether someone decided to visit a particular article independently or because he/she encountered a link has no bearing on the subject's overall prominence. If subject x's article is visited via internal links five times more frequently than subject y's article is, it's likely that the search ratio is not dramatically different.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. My point was that under the previous setup few people had to go through the dab page. Under the current setup, same thing. By no means is that always the case in a requested move. Or are you saying that it is and I just haven't noticed?
As I noted in my previous reply, I believe that Wikipedia's articles in general are most commonly accessed via internal links and external search engines (such as Google).
However, I regard a 164,300-view/85% reduction in the disambiguation page's usage as a significant improvement. That might constitute "few people" in relative terms, but not in absolute terms (in my view).
Do you agree with me that if we judged the issue only by the long-term significance criterion, the theater would be the primary topic? Or do you you think there is no such primary topic?
The latter. When I state that "I don't believe that the 'long-term significance' criterion is applicable", I don't mean that it's merely outweighed; I mean that it literally doesn't apply. As I noted previously, "'long-term significance' describes a situation in which something remains prominent over an extended period, not one in which it simply existed earlier and wasn't forgotten entirely."
I would not have thought they were as obscure as you keep saying. Perhaps I am just out of touch.
Compared with the TV channel and related entities, they're relatively obscure (and have been for many years). The available evidence shows this.
Wikipedia has always been in danger of being bogged down with pop culture. I think it's a systemic bias, but I have no problem with editors working in whatever areas they prefer.
We're in complete agreement here. As I tell users when they complain about a topical imbalance, they're welcome to help narrow the gap by contributing articles on the notable subjects that they prefer. —David Levy 01:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Our goal is to direct readers to the articles that they seek. The television channel isn't the word's original meaning, but it's the primary meaning nowadays.
Bonusballs has addressed the "long-term significance" argument well, and I'll add that the criterion is intended to discourage a determination of primacy based on a temporary/ephemeral spike in interest. For example, if someone by the name of "Patrick Stewart" were to crash an airplane into the Eiffel Tower (resulting in a major scare but no serious damage), there might be a brief period in which discussion of "Patrick Stewart" focused mainly on this incident, but that wouldn't be a valid reason to move the Patrick Stewart article to Patrick Stewart (actor) and retarget the base title to an article about the hypothetical pilot or crash. A scenario in which a TV channel has been the predominant usage of a term for decades is hardly comparable. —David Levy 00:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't a hatnote "direct readers to the articles that they seek"? Bonusballs had misunderstood the long-term significance argument: he seem to think it depends on the nickelodeon theatre phenomenon being of long duration. The TV channel is one of many—hundreds or thousands—of like channels. The theatre was unique, a first of its kind. How rapidly it was superceded is but a sign of its significance. (As an aside, the term "nickelodeon" was unambiguous for more decades than it has primarily meant the TV channel.) Srnec (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't a hatnote "direct readers to the articles that they seek"?
Yes, it does. But we seek to maximize the ease with which readers access their desired articles (by minimizing the number of steps required). Most persons reaching the Nickelodeon page seek the article about the television channel, so placing a disambiguation page or different article at that title would cause far more hindrance than help. A navigational hatnote is intended to assist a minority of readers arriving at the page.
Bonusballs had misunderstood the long-term significance argument:
As noted above, said argument is based upon a misunderstanding of the guideline (which, incidentally, I helped to write).
The TV channel is one of many—hundreds or thousands—of like channels.
Firstly, the Nickelodeon channel is among the most noteworthy in the history of cable television. Secondly, if you're under the impression that the "long-term significance" criterion always is applicable (i.e. that when multiple entities share a name, we must determine which has the greatest long-term significance and make this a prime consideration in the articles' naming), you're mistaken. Quite often, no subject "has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with [the] term". This is explained in the guideline. ("In [many cases], only one sense of primacy is relevant.")
(As an aside, the term "nickelodeon" was unambiguous for more decades than it has primarily meant the TV channel.)
Again, the intent behind the "long-term significance" criterion is to discourage the establishment of primacy based on transient prominence (a situation likely to change in the near future, rendering our navigational setup counterproductive), not to encourage comparisons based on which subject predominated for "more decades". —David Levy 16:05/18:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Bonusballs addressed long-term significance by stating how long nickelodeon theatres were around, but that's like saying that World War II was less significant than the war in Afghanistan because it was shorter. Long-term significance, as defined by the guideline, is composed of "enduring notability" and "educational value". We do not yet know whether the TV channel will be equally notable ~100 years after it ceases to exist, but I won't hold my breath. My Britannica point was that for encyclopedic treatment, people can expect the nickel cinemas. After all, the network has its own website. Wikipedia ought to be a go-to source for more than just what is already easily found on the web. (Note how few offline references this article has. Contrast that with the theatre article.) Srnec (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Bonusballs addressed long-term significance by stating how long nickelodeon theatres were around, but that's like saying that World War II was less significant than the war in Afghanistan because it was shorter.
The duration of an entity's existence isn't the sole factor in determining its long-term significance, but it certainly can play a role (and this is considerably more likely in the case of leisure than in the case of war). Had nickelodeons remained popular longer than about a decade, perhaps they'd have had a greater societal impact. But they didn't, so they're a relative obscurity (and I say that as a past student of cinema history with a continuing interest in the subject).
Long-term significance, as defined by the guideline, is composed of "enduring notability" and "educational value". We do not yet know whether the TV channel will be equally notable ~100 years after it ceases to exist, but I won't hold my breath.
You're absolutely right that we don't know. That's why the "long-term significance" criterion needn't enter the equation. (As noted above, it isn't always applicable.) Your apparent interpretation essentially amounts to favoritism of any defunct but unforgotten subject over any contemporary subject with the same name.
My Britannica point was that for encyclopedic treatment, people can expect the nickel cinemas.
And you've arrived at this conclusion because "when [you] search for nickelodeon + britannica on Google, the motion picture theatre comes up first". Meanwhile, a Bing search returns the two articles in the opposite order (on my end, at least). So does a "nickelodeon" query via the Encyclopædia Britannica website's internal search function.
After all, the network has its own website. Wikipedia ought to be a go-to source for more than just what is already easily found on the web.
Are you arguing that we should pointedly favor subjects with less coverage elsewhere on the Web?
—David Levy 20:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you arguing that we should pointedly favor subjects with less coverage elsewhere on the Web?
Yes. Not absolutely, of course, but up to a point I think it just follows from our purpose, as recognised by our guidelines. The more we rely on the internet above other sources the more insular we (and the internet) become. I have actually seen editors behave as if only sources publicly accessible on the web are verifiable. There are obscure historical figures who meet our notability guidelines and have barely a mention on the web. (Especially if nobody has written about them in English much.) Srnec (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Then you seek to fundamentally alter Wikipedia's conventions.
We aspire to provide encyclopedic treatment of all subjects meeting our notability standards, irrespective of the amount of coverage they've received on the Internet or in the English language. Editors who regard only Web-based sources as verifiable are incorrect, but we don't discriminate against topics with extensive online exposure either. —David Levy 22:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
We aspire to provide encyclopedic treatment of all subjects meeting our notability standards
I did not dispute that.
Your question was vague and I regret responding to it. This debate is not for here, so I won't try to defend myself, other than to note that we already recognise vital articles and some wikiprojects have importance scales. Srnec (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
We prioritize based on the subjects themselves, not others' coverage or lack thereof. —David Levy 00:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose as it is per above. JJ98 (Talk) 03:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, per WP:Common name and WP:Primary topic; our readers will undoubtedly usually be looking for the article about the television network. Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2013 (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.

Source of name

Past few edits have added info on the alleged source of the name Nickelodeon. After two non-RS, Nickelfan added a book as the source. I cannot find anything mentioned in the book related to the quote using the preview on Google Books. Can someone please verify this? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I linked it to that book is because it was part of a "teaser" that was featuring interviews that were deleted from the book. First, I sourced it from the original Facebook post, but then, I sourced it from the book. If you can suggest a better source, please do. Nickelfan (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

So it's not in the book itself? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Nickelfan (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Then you can't use it as a source. Sorry. Is there a site that has those lines as part of a promo (like on Amazon or something?) EvergreenFir (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Only Facebook. Again, as I said, this was a deleted section from the book that was posted on the book's Facebook page for promotion of the book. Nickelfan (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Split

Can we split the history to History of Nickelodeon? The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Citicism, Controversy, and Censorship/Edit Request 5/12/14

Could there be a section on the artical that shows the critisism, controversy, and censorship of the network over the years? For example, many longtime fans of the channel are upset of the state of Nickelodeon as it has been for the past few years (A.K.A The 2009 Relaunch And New Text Logo). Some souces of citicism, controversy, and censorship can be found all over the internet, including YouTube. --24.147.1.197 (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley

Sounds like soapboxing to me... Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 15:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Logo variant

Should we include the "white text on orange background" variant of the current logo, as shown here? Nickelodeon seems to be using this variant on their DVD packaging, and even in their network identification bumpers and social media icons. IMO, it would be worth a mention. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 15:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think white on an orange background overwhelms the infobox but the logo in the infobox is for identification and if the current logo is no longer used to identify the network, should be changed to one that does. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No Kenzie Pat (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kenzie Pat: No what? Was that a reply to the comment above? nyuszika7h (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge history article into this one?

Should History of Nickelodeon be merged into this article? CN doesn't have their own history article so why should Nick?--98.237.40.132 (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to merge the history article with this one (and for the same to be done with History of Disney Channel/Disney Channel). The "History" section on this article does not summarize any of the network's history beyond the early '80s, and the contents of the separate history page are much shorter than the "History" sections on comparable articles like CBS. I will probably merge the articles myself soon if nobody proposes a different idea. Capcapandgengen (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolution/feed of the channel

As most of people know this, the majority of channels nowadays are broadcasting in HD natively, and downscaling their content for the now archaic, standard definition feeds. The content shown on both HD and SD feeds is the same, with the difference that the SD feeds airs content letterboxed in fullscreen or airs it at widescreen 720x480i. What it is not clear to me is that it's not specified if Nickelodeon has two different feeds (HD and SD) not airing the same programming simultaneously (i.e. the SD feed dedicating most of the time showing Spongebob episodes while the HD feed is airing sitcoms). Can anybody explain this to me? Thanks in advance. --Bankster1 (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Possibly a result of timeshifting? Perhaps the SD and HD feeds have different time zone offsets. ONR (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Nickelodeon offers two feeds for cable; a regular feed for the Eastern/Central time zones offered in HD and SD to providers in that region, and then "Nick 2", which contains a psudo-Pacific/Mountain feed with the schedule three hours behind and due to contracts, only airs in SD. It's the exact reverse for those in the Pacific/Mountain zones; this is most apparent when Full House is on at 9pm ET on the E/C feed but Spongebob is on at 6pm PT on the P/M feed. Meanwhile, DirecTV and Dish offer both feeds in HD and SD because there's no easy way to restrict things that way. I hope that helps. Nate • (chatter) 05:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Move to Nickelodeon (TV channel)

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: SNOW retain per this edit, which suggests yet more Gabucho181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) detrius involving their Dan Vs. return, so this shouldn't even exist in the first place. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 19:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Nickelodeon → Nickelodeon (TV channel) – The first Nickelodeon was a theater, and that means the Nickelodeon television network page will be moved to Nickelodeon (TV channel) again. Nickelodeon (disambiguation) will be redirected to Nickelodeon in 7 days. This will be the first move since 2011. 162.254.205.92 (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Retain Most obvious use. We're not changing things just because it's six years since the last discussion out of boredom. The nickelodeon theater concept isn't known by most outside of film folk; Nickelodeon the channel definitely is. Also, your original rationale, saying that we should redirect because their ratings are worse than most years, makes no sense at all. We don't take away subject primacy just because of a slump in the Nielsens or the Viacom boardroom. Nate • (chatter) 04:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose Why would you be renaming the article if Nickelodeon is generally known as a television brand worldwide? Renaming the Nickelodeon theatre article to just "Nickelodeon" is illogical. It makes no sense. -Bankster1 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose move. It appears the primary topic will be the TV channel for the foreseeable future; the theater concept is known to many only as the namesake of the channel. ONR (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose: The channel is clearly the WP:PTOPIC. I agree that the nominator's reasoning makes no sense. Capcapandgengen (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: I think that the disambiguation page will be redirected to Nickelodeon after six years. That is my good idea.... 162.211.126.243 (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice: a distribution sub-content of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic is still having the Nickelodeon (TV channel) redirect link when this channel is mentioned in that page. 162.211.126.245 (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
both vote!s struck; you can't vote for your own proposal. Any further finagling like this and I'm closing the discussion as WP:SNOW if you're not going to take this seriously. Nate • (chatter) 19:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)}}

Oppose per Nate. Sundayclose (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2017 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2017

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

98.166.43.156 (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The hours of the nick Jr block on nickelodeon, will change back to 8:30am - 2:00pm, starting Monday, June 5, 2017. Can Someone Change the Hours of the nick Jr block back to 8:30am - 2:00pm, under the programming blocks section?

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2017

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

98.166.43.156 (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The nick Jr Block on nickelodeon hours has changed back to 8:30am - 2:00pm since Monday, June 5, 2017. Can someone change the Hours back to 8:30am - 2:00pm, under the Current programming blocks section?

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2017

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: Speedy close Nice try Gabucho181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but this isn't happening again; another sock of this user trying to be disruptive. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC) Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Nickelodeon → Nickelodeon (TV channel) – As the first Nickelodeon was a theater, it means the Nickelodeon television network page will be moved to Nickelodeon (TV channel) again. Nickelodeon (disambiguation) will be redirected to Nickelodeon in 7 days. This will be the first move since 2011 because the TV channel was not the first with the Nickelodeon name, and the theater was officially the first with that name. 2601:6C5:8002:BE53:E5C4:BF72:4AA2:18FF (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The channel is the main use of the word. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2017 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2017

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

98.166.35.148 (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The Nick at Nite hours now broadcasts Sundays - Fridays from 8:00pm - 7:00am, and Saturdays from 9:00pm - 7:00am since September 25, 2017. Can someone change the Nick at Nite hours to Sundays - Fridays from 8:00pm - 7:00am, and Saturdays from 9:00pm - 7:00am, under the Nick at Nite section.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

At this point it's common that Nick and Nick at Nite's start time shifts easily based on holidays, programming priorities and who knows what else. We don't need to confuse the reader with this when it could change easily later on. Nate • (chatter) 19:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2017

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Spectrum will be getting rid of Viacom channels. 2604:6000:A18E:0:4C01:17B2:BBE4:1121 (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Nickelodeon on DirecTV Now

I think Nickelodeon can be found as Streaming Media on DirecTV Now as well. --73.6.75.134 (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah Dip771 (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

New Nicktoon coming

Maybe a nicktoon (cartoon) is coming? Dip771 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2017

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

212.226.152.125 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You have not made any request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2017

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Appears to contain mostly advertising. Needs to be severely curtailed and not a sheer program listing. Atkinsok (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Launched in 1979??

Technically, yes. Nickelodeon was originally made in 1977, but was actually first TESTED as the Pinwheel Network that year. Pinwheel was actually Nickelodeon's progenitor. Nickelodeon didn't launch as a full channel until April 1, 1979.

To be honest, these categories:

Category:1977 establishments in Ohio
Category:1977 events in the United States
Category:American companies established in 1977
Category:Entertainment companies established in 1977
Category:Television channels and stations established in 1977

should be replaced by these categories:

Category:1979 establishments in Ohio
Category:1979 events in the United States
Category:American companies established in 1979
Category:Entertainment companies established in 1979
Category:Television channels and stations established in 1979

and this: Launch: December 1, 1977; 40 years ago

Replaced with this: Launch: December 1, 1977; 40 years ago (tested as "Pinwheel"), April 1, 1979 (official launch for "Nickelodeon") --73.6.75.134 (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2018

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Programming section, change the text "(such as iCarly and Bella and the Bulldogs and fairly oddparents )," to "(such as iCarly, Bella and the Bulldogs, and The Fairly OddParents)," as well as including a link to The Fairly OddParents article. 2602:302:D159:3500:A9F8:975E:28A8:3CFB (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Done Elassint ^Hi 03:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Expanded universe

I've noticed that a lot of the sitcoms appear to cross over with each other, and I'm wondering if I've made all the connections in regard to what is a shared universe.

Drake & Josh (2004-2007)
iCarly 2007-2012
Victorious 2010-2013:
- featured in the iCarly special iParty with Victorious in 11 June 2011
- Drake+Josh character appears in the Victorious episode "Helen Back Again" in 10 September 2011
Sam & Cat (June 2013 to 2014) is a merger of iCarly/Victorious
The Thundermans (Oct 2013 to 2018)
Henry Danger (2014 to present):
- episode 32 "Secret Beef", Herb from Sam & Cat guest stars in the show.
- episode 42 "Danger & Thunder" characters from The Thundermans appears.
- episode 56 "Live & Dangerous: Part 1" Goomer from Sam & Cat appears.

So in total there appears to be six shows part of a shared universe:

2005 Drake and Josh
2007 iCarly
2010 Victorious
2013 Sam and Cat
2013 The Thundermans
2014 Henry Danger

Did I miss any? I'd like to know if we can find any reliable sources which talk about this shared universe, and if any have come up with a term to refer to it. Like how Leijiverse does. ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Schneider's Bakery covers this for most of the shows. Real crossover are advertised as such, usually have a significant number of cast members appearing in the other show, and the show itself usually includes a bit of the story of the crossover characters. A character playing a minor role in some other show is fairly trivial and usually not worth mentioning. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

An example of a significant crossover would be something like the Jessie and Austin & Ally crossovers. Although even when notable, we should avoid simply listing the cast and characters. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

all nickt

ljubomir and predrag bibic 23 domovinskog rata split 21000 hrvatska — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.187.145 (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Eneter zim

I started Draft:Invader Zim: Enter the Florpus dose anyone want to help?Fanoflionking 22:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

75.84.146.76 (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Animated Show Filmography (1991 - 2018)

Doug

Rugrats

The Ren and Stimpy Show

Rocko's Modern Life

Aaahh!!! Real Monsters

Action League Now!

Hey Arnold!

KaBlam!

The Angry Beavers

CatDog

The Wild Thornberrys

SpongeBob SquarePants

Rocket Power

As Told by Ginger

The Fairly OddParents

Invader Zim

The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius

ChalkZone

My Life as a Teenage Robot

All Grown Up!

Danny Phantom

Avatar: The Last Airbender

Catscratch

The X's

Kappa Mikey

El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera

Wayside

Tak and the Power of Juju

Back at the Barnyard

The Mighty B!

The Penguins of Madagascar

Planet Sheen

T.U.F.F. Puppy

Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.146.76 (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I found videos about Nick 2 airing Spain so Nick 2 is NOT defunct 184.58.107.150 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2019

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

184.58.107.150 (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Not done - it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nanophosis (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move Not Considered Yet another likely attempt by Gabucho181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at disruption (I'm sure we'll see if they try to undo me several times after this). Still primary topic, will remain so outside of a shocking copyright abandonment case, and we don't move pages because of rambling rants about children's network ratings. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 19:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Nickelodeon → Nickelodeon (TV channel) – Nickelodeon's low ratings is showing a significant decline in the network's popularity according the news that says "Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, And Cartoon Network Ratings Are In Free Fall". Because the network is no longer available in homes where Netflix is used, the Nickelodeon page, after 8 years, will be redirected to Nickelodeon (TV channel), and many people says "we consider the Nickelodeon theater as the common name" as a result of the network's lose in popularity. Cartoon Network's Wikipedia page will also be redirected to Cartoon Network (United States) since CN USA is making a controversial daily week line-up, which consisted only of Teen Titans Go!, that received negative reviews from critics. The only wikipedia page that will remain as a common name will be the Disney Channel television network. 71.163.150.28 (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2019 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2019

File:556.png

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

135.19.211.101 (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2019

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I will add more information and remove information that is repeatedly showing up in the article.I will add (Pinwheel) to the information box. FiberMustLive1426 (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

1.9.115.191 (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

What happened? The American Nickelodeon only broadcasts in English.

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"Pinwheel relaunched as "Nick" on April 1, 1979"

Shouldn't it say "Pinwheel relaunched as "Nickelodeon" on April 1, 1979"? --121.220.152.50 (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suggest to add (Español Latinoamericano) right after Latin American Spanish. CarlosTankEngineBoi (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Please let me edit semi protected articles

Not done: adding that phrase wouldn't make sense on the English Wikipedia. Also, this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. TimSmit (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

|ans=no

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I need to add a redirect to the article Patrick10293 (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2021

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2A0A:A546:6E00:0:F12F:A5A1:B9B9:AF2D (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to add Nickelodeon Productions plz.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2021 (2)

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

TimiWikia2021 (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to add Nickelodeon Productions

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2021

This edit request to Nickelodeon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think the page should be able to edit by anyone. There is nothing I want to add on the Nickelodeon page. That is the thing. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC) 107.146.244.150 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

6 : PM

Thursday 2601:804:203:3720:3CA6:BAA1:4A0B:EAE1 (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Princess

Ritika’s birthday 🎂 2A00:23C3:5500:701:A8CC:9610:89E5:8D43 (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Nkosazana Daughter

Nkosazana Daughter is a South African singer who sing young children songs like Nomathemba 41.116.45.115 (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Jace Norman known as Henry Hart

Jace did have an affair with Riele downs who known as Charlotte their did end up like be parents 🌧️🌧️ Geography out side 🛌 L.o in side 🤰 Tomorrow results

Serious yazz 41.116.45.115 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

TavishWalsh

Hi Nickelodeon my name is Thomas Walsh and I have maybe wanted to talk to you guys about a new show got to be pretty nice to you guys could hear it the name of the show that I thought of was called alpha runners it's me it's only a good name and it was really hoping that you guys can look over at and make it into a TV show 2603:8081:8C03:CB67:4DD1:D0B3:C4B6:15B (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)