Jump to content

Talk:FYI (American TV channel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:FYI (U.S. TV channel))

Requested move

[edit]

Biography Channel → The Biography Channel – {"The Biography Channel" (with the definite article) is the trademarked name of the television channel} — Literaryfairy 02:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • If you think it should be moved, why not just move it? As the other name does not exist the move is not blocked. Philip Baird Shearer 11:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Because the user's account isn't old enough to enable the move function. violet/riga (t) 22:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 22:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Celebrity Ghost Stories

[edit]

What about the series, Celebrity Ghost Stories? 69.115.39.30 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FYI brand

[edit]

It's still very early for the FYI article, but I saw where they have greenlit six series and two pilots so far:

Series
  • The Epic Meal Show (working title) – 16 half-hour episodes
  • The Feed (working title) – 6 one-hour episodes
  • World Food Championships – 6 one-hour episodes
  • Tiny House Nation (working title) – 10 one-hour episodes
  • Renovation Row (working title) – 10 one-hour episodes
  • B.O.R.N. to Style – 10 one-hour episodes
Pilots
  • Jennifer’s Way (working title) – half-hour pilot
  • Red Hot Design (working title) – half-hour pilot

Source. Keeping an eye out for more info. — Wyliepedia 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]

I don't think that the original but the moved Bio Channel article (now Fyi (TV channel)) and the independently started FYI (TV channel) should be merger as there still other Bio channels (Australian, Canada -which will have a competing FYI, etc.) out there (which should mostly likely could/mostly be condensed down to that one article). Chris1294 claims because there is no change in ownership, the Bio Channel article is short and some channels that have rebranded were just moved. As I pointed out there isn't much of a standard here as there are just as many that have separate articles after rebranding. There may be more information out there about the Bio channel, for example, how did it get to just new crime themed programming. Yes, there may be alot duplication in the Fyi article with the Bio article as it is being rebranded from Bio. Spshu (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding additional information on Bio being out there, the channel was branded that for 15 years so there almost has to be more. Spshu (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yeah. Total WP:REDUNDANTFORK. 23W 19:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, redundant fork, what? FYI was first set up for the new channel then Chris rename the Bio Channel to Fyi to create the name redundancy. So, how to resolve the issue, merge or return Fyi back to its original Bio Channel name? O, and there still Bio Channels international speaking. Spshu (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, FYI was initially a redirect. Then Spshu got the bright idea to create an article there. Typically, re-brandings of this nature do not get separate articles unless there is a major ownership change with a complete change in scope that is significant and detailed enough for its own article (i.e. Al Jazeera America), or the new network is technically and legally distinct from the previous one (Fox Sports 1). ViperSnake151  Talk  23:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, FYI was initial only a redirect, but was still the first to be made into an FYI/Fyi article after launch. That is some thing that Chris indicated but as I indicated at my talk page, as many changes in formats with out ownership changes have seperate articles: But Bio will still/may exist over in other countries not all Bio Channels will be re-branded. Easier just to have one Bio Channel article. For other similar rebranding with no change in ownership there are two different articles:
  • Jetix → Disney XD, Disney Channels
  • Jetix Play → Playhouse Disney, Disney XD +1
  • Playhouse Disney, Soapnet → Disney Junior
  • Toon Disney → Disney XD, Disney Cinemagic
Fox Sports 1's source do not indicate that it legally or technically distinct from Speed. The timing of Fox Sports 1 could have come at the expiration date of Speed's carriage contracts and Fox could have planned it that way, so they would get the Soapnet/Disney Junior "lag" and a bump in carriage fees. Don't see that they are legally separate with FXX & Fox Soccer and they have separate articles. Spshu (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are not equivalent scenarios; what you have brought up were much larger changes. In FXX's case, you have the closedown of a sports channel and its replacement with a completely different genre. In SoapNet's case, Disney Junior co-existed with the channel it had allegedly "replaced" on several providers (as our article says), meaning that they are treated as separate channels. Fyi is just a re-branding that can easily be covered as an evolution of Bio. I must say, its easier to keep tabs on things like this in Canada because cable networks have to be licensed too, and our Fyi is a re-brand of something that used to be our Discovery Health Channel). ViperSnake151  Talk  00:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are equivalent scenarios. Bio Channel is a documentary channel while FYI is a live style channel. Thus completely different genres. Gee, who is now lowering the standard from a separate "legal entity" to just a genre change. There are still Bio Channels still out there co-existing with the FYI just in other countries that could most like just covered in a stand alone Bio Channel article as a opposed to a FYI that includes Bio history. FXX was a re-branding of Fox Soccer and so was Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2 of Speed and Fuel, which still have versions in other countries and are in the same general category of sports that Speed and Fuel where/are in, although they were more specialized. Spshu (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not. Both Bio and Fyi are oriented towards entertainment programming, it is a mere reformatting, and these things happen all the time. Only in truly exceptional cases have such reformatings been treated as so indifferent that they are considered to be separate channels for the purposes of Wikipedia. Fox Soccer and Speed to FXX and Fox Sports 1 were significant because they were part of a major re-alignment of Fox's cable division. Disney XD and Disney Junior were significant because Disney was not only re-branding the network, but creating a completely new international brand. Fuel to Fox Sports 2 is not significant because it was just a simple evolution in programming. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on moving the "goal post". Sports can be considered entertainment programming too. Also, A+E did re-alignment instead of keeping the A+E Networks channels separate from the Lifetime channels: A&E channel & Lifetime channel and Bio & LMN were aligned under a single executive. Spshu (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say it yourself: History. In other words, it wasn't a CFORK. (Past tense, not present.) Now, it is. Maybe you want to split the article history. (You can, if notability criteria is fulfilled; and that does not contradict the consensus formed here.) But I certainly don't support putting up a sign on the top of the article that says "Sorry, clueless readers who are here exactly because you don't have a clue, but we Wikipedia editors chose to confuse you because of some technicality in the CFORK policy". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO, there is no policy against it. But visiting revision ID 616017671 of 8 July 2014, the prose size is 3080 bytes, which is lamentably small. Basically, there is a lot of room until the 64 kilobytes mark. I think I remember a case: There was initially a lot of reluctance about even mentioning any connection between Hotmail and Outlook.com as related products (August 2012) but eventually, the community merged both, (April 2013) having realized that they have much in common.
Think about it like this: Is there something markedly significant about Bio that is absent in Fyi, so much so that it warrants an entire article? One that a person not knowing the subject would feel it is worth reading? If not, merge them with throwing anything away. You have as much as 62 kilobytes space for that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no debate. Bio and FYI are two different brands, so they get two different articles. I think we shouldn't make a separate article for FYI. Just add info to the Bio. article. Besides, now we have two articles named FYI/Fyi, and keeping track of them is a pain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcoPolo250 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We would not have the pain in tracking the difference between FYI/fyi, if Bio and FYI are kept separate then Fyi would be move back to Bio and be stripped of FYI programming and info past hand off. Spshu (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We would not have the pain in tracking the difference between FYI/fyi if you had at least talked about the idea of splitting it rather than just being bold and doing it anyway. Unfortunately, there is now a growing consensus against your decision. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

←First off, look at the facts, I was the first mover (23:25, 7 July 2014 before Chris1294 rename the Bio Channel 04:57, 8 July 2014‎. Which was already edited to show the FYI channel article as the successor to Bio 22:08, 7 July 2014. Secondly, I restore the Fyi article to what it should show with the edit summary of "restore the bio channel so it can be seen" so it would be easier for those discussing the issue to tell the difference. To which you reversed it with the edit summary of "Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". So a non-disrupting edit to show editors what the Bio Channel should look like is "disrupting to make a point". So do not lay the blame at my feet at keeping track of FYI versus Fyi/Bio article differences, as you reversed the picture of what it would look like for discussion sake. ←2 for merger, ViperSnake151 and MarcoPolo. Chris1294 has not come to vote. Unclear: W23. Indifferent: Codename Lisa. 2 for separate Bio/FYI articles, Dogmaticeclectic and Spshu. So, what "growing consensus" are you talking about? Spshu (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, I must reiterate, only in special cases have we actually split an article for a cable network because of a dramatic change in format; in both of these cases, the number of changes were so severe that they could not be covered in the previous article without a dramatic rewrite (which would in turn, make information about its previous format difficult to incorporate without it being in a second article.
Now, before you twist my words and say that Bio > FYI was so severe that it requires a second article, let's contrast. Fox Sports 1 was a radical shift (pun not intended) because it was the forefront of a major re-alignment of an entire division, had many differences in its operation that set it apart from Speed, plus there was just so many details that it could not fit in the Speed article at all without making a mess. Plus I consider FS1 to be a separate network that "replaced" Speed because Fox had to essentially treat it as such due to the need to redo carriage contracts. Disney Junior also got a new article because it was not only designed to replace two channels (Playhouse Disney and SoapNet), but also designed to be a brand new international brand. By contrast, Biography Channel was just a run of the mill entertainment channel; these things go through shifts and refocusing all the time.
All they needed to do for Bio to FYI was add new shows (which is something done all the time of services like this) that fit a different niche, and change the branding to reflect this. Similarly, even though it had basically turned from TV Land to Travel Channel overnight, DTour did not get a separate article from TVTropolis because it is legally the same channel (unlike in the U.S., cable channels in Canada must be licensed by the telecommunications regulator, making these judgements more definitive. Even though Dusk was replaced by ABC Spark by most providers, they get separate articles because they actually are two different licenses). ViperSnake151  Talk  15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating stuff that isn't sourced. Speed was still in the Sports division as Speed was a specialized sports channel switch to a general sports format. So no such "major re-alignment of an entire division". As I pointed out, A+E Network realigned too crossing the old A+E and Lifetime network divisions lines (For example, A&E with Lifetime TV, Bio was paired with LMN under a relaunch specialist). There is no indication that "the need to redo carriage contracts" exist in changing from Speed to FSports 1. The "redo" could have been done understanding that Fox paid more for programming that would draw a larger audience or FSports align the relaunch with then end of the previous carriage contract. Secondly like Speed, Bio was not shut down worldwide. FSports 1 still seems to be carrying some Speed programming still.
There is no legal difference between ABC Family and its predecessors [[Television networks preceding ABC Family as the channel is required to keep Family in its name and to air the The 700 Club and it has two articles. Spshu (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I talk about Fox Sports 1 being part of a re-alignment, I bring up the replacement of Fox Soccer with FXX as well. And also "There is no indication that "the need to redo carriage contracts" exist in changing from Speed to FSports 1'"; did you even read the article?! ViperSnake151  Talk  05:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read the article. While the article states that, it is not supported by the sources. Spshu (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so? Did you even read this? Which says "Because Fox was changing the channel’s content from a motorsports channel to an all-sports channel -- thereby changing [the providers'] contracts -- the distributors had the right to drop it." ViperSnake151  Talk  23:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that same source states: "Fox told the distributors that it would convert Speed into FS1 and allow distributors with existing Speed deals to carry it at Speed’s rate, or at least close to it, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the talks." "Rather than having these carriage fights with multiple distributors at launch, Fox execs, led by Fox Networks Distribution President Mike Hopkins, decided to establish the channel on cable and satellite systems first. Then, as Speed’s affiliate deals expire, Fox will try to negotiate increases. While those negotiations will occur in an environment where distributors have become more emboldened in their disputes with sports networks, Fox is banking that systems find that it is more disruptive to drop existing channels that have a built-in audience." The article is clear that Fox moved from starting up separately from Speed (as one point they were: "... it told distributors that they would be provided with a watered-down version of Speed if they did not agree to a new FS1 deal.") So, they moved from an all new channel that replaced Speed to Speed rebranding to FS1 to get the carriage thus just needing to get change of programming approval. Spshu (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:ViperSnake151, would you mind finally addressing the point I brought up regarding The Biography Channel (UK and Ireland) and Lifetime (UK and Ireland)? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles use different terminology, suggesting that it was shut down and replaced with no continuity between them at all. It's another fringe case, but it's poorly sourced too. Seriously, can we just end this war and keep the article acknowledging its full history alone? The other article is just a mere POV fork by an editor who does not consider these two networks to have the same continuity. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FYI (U.S. TV channel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FYI (U.S. TV channel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why does FYI not have closed captioning?

[edit]

Watching fyi channel on Frndly. No closed captions on fyi. 40.136.246.243 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:FYI_(American_TV_channel)&oldid=1244216738"