Talk:Logo TV

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Logo TV article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: This article is about the LGBT television network.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Television: Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

New logo

It seems that the logo for, er, LOGO has changed again; looking at their website it doesn't seem to be the one shown here (or the one referenced in a recent BoingBoing article). What gives? Phil Bordelon 17:37, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

The name "Logo"

I'm also wondering why it's called LOGO? Is it just because it has an "L" and a "G" in it? -- Beland 01:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i have to agree logo is a dum name for a tv station. but a lot of tv staions have a dum name. guest 29 nov 2008

It's called Logo because it's about identity.

Listing questions

Why is "First Comes Love" listed twice on this page - and a section called "Other programming new to U.S. audiences"?tdempsey 02:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement tag

"How will they express their love for each other? Find out on First Comes Love.", "Only on LOGO!", etc. :: Supergolden 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clean it up; do we think the ad tag can be removed?Otto4711 10:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logo or LOGO?

I'm just wondering which is the more official usage, capitalized or not? --Revolución (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be Logo, rather than LOGO, according to their official site, most of the body text uses title case rather than all upper case. Aep 05:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting or Advertising

I'm glad to see this entry but think that the descriptions of the shows on this network are in a style more appropriate for advertising the shows than for reporting on them. Interlingua 05:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge with...

Please merge this article with Logo (TV Channel). I created this page because I was not aware that this one was already here.

Programming lists

Are these at all helpful or useful? Every time I look at this page these lists strike me as being more and more of a waste of space. Otto4711 14:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headers

At the bottom I think there are way too many headers with only the few sentences that can fill them. It seems more like an ad trying to sell the channel by pointing out interestinf features than a Wikipedia article. --OGoncho 08:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo via Time Warner Cable

Logo doesn't appear on any one channel globally throughout its' services. Logo is channel 247 on Time Warner Cable Nebraska (Lincoln), but 146 on Time Warner Cable Southern California. I typed 68502 and 90210 has my references into tv.yahoo.com to get these results. Meojive 02:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo on Dish Network

What is the Source for logo being on dishnetwork sometime in 2007? Makhay 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just ridiculous

A network that presumably espouses tolerance censors the hell out of A Dirty Shame. I srsly doubt John Waters is okay with that.

Image copyright problem with Image:CBS news logo.jpg

The image Image:CBS news logo.jpg 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. --01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BNN channel 504 on Bell Satellite BNN LOGO burnt into my screen !!!!

I have been viewing BNN channel 504 on Bell Satellite for 5 months now since I am a new online stock trader and find there channel very informative concerning online trading. I was horrified this weekend while viewing a DVD movie that my HDTV set has the entire BNN LOGO burnt into my screen. I would like to have my TV replaced since this is absolutely BNN'S fault. They should have a warning disclaimer on your screen or rotate this STATIC logo as to prevent this from happening again to some other unaware viewer. Is there anybody that can assist me in my quest for justice since BNN [Business News Network]has refused to take any responsibility for having ruined by HDTV. I need help to fight uncaring Goliath. 142.162.54.227 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this isn't the place to post whatever it is you just posted, but if you have a plasma HDTV, then yes, it will have burn in. LCDs do too, but not as easily. For an LCD to get burn-in, you have to have the image on the screen for maybe 1000 hours or more total, while with a plasma screen it only takes a few hours. CRT has the same principles as LCD for burn-in. Also if you are using a plasma, try using the whitewash method of screen cleaning, and then enable the orbiter mode. If you continue to have burn-in, keep whitewashing the screen. You can also whitewash the screen overnight when not using the HDTV, as the color white doesn't harm the plasma, no depleats it, as plasma screens depleat of black gas. Coffee4binky (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, but the listing for the movie "Hairspray" has the wrong Hairspray information. The one showing is the original movie, not the one with Nikki Blonsky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.57.150.68 (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 December 2015

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: not moved. No sources provided to support change. Jenks24 (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logo TV → Logo (TV network) – I know the name keeps changing, but this is the name right now. 2601:8C:4001:DCF4:D513:8975:380F:B573 (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Before I sign off and support this, can anyone link to a press release stating that "Logo TV" rebranded as just "Logo"?! Because I just did a really quick search, but didn't find anything... Failing such sourcing, I'm inclined to oppose this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Their website url is "logotv.com" and they refer themselves as "LogoTV" here, here and here, The less confusing thing to do is keep it at this name regardless of new name changes. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Removing LGBT categorization

As of late 2016 the channel carried no LGBT programming. It only carries American sit-com reruns from the 1950s to 1980s. Therefore, there should be no categorization as such. Dogru144 (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then become a Viacom shareholder, become a board member and get into the executive office so you can declare as such. This isn't going to happen; they carry enough programming to qualify and until they put out a press release saying they're a rerun network, it isn't going to happen. Note that in the past we've considered stuff like this vandalism (especially with LGBTQ+ issues), so just don't do it. Nate • (chatter) 21:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was trying to figure out how reruns of Green Acres fit a LGBT agenda.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.90.64 (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classic TV programming

Contrary to the edits of User:Mrschimpf aka 'Nate,' all of the station's programming is retro/classic, and therefore belongs in .Dogru144 (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Dogru144 (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They have new and original programming and do not market in that way; the categorization is inappropriate. Nate • (chatter) 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 June 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: not moved DrStrauss talk 09:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logo TV → Logo (TV channel) – It has been about a year and a half since the last move request, and at this point, it seems as if the channel is just known as "Logo" without "TV" next to it (as noticed in this press release: [1]. 76.116.198.27 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Davey2010 and IJBall: since they participated in the last RM and this has elapsed without comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on this one, which is why I didn't comment before. The website is still at logotv.com, but it looks like "Logo TV" is not actually used as a term at the website anymore. OTOH, WP:NATURALDIS would favor leaving it at Logo TV. Also, I think WP:OFFICIALNAME might be applicable here as well. In short, this is all enough to get me to not support the proposal, but I'm not going to oppose it this time either... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Well I did a !vote this morning with sources however it doesn't appear to have saved ..... Anyway basically oppose per the last RM - The "Logo TV" name is still being used and Logo TV themselves use the name on their Twitter and I believe on their website, I would provide sources but it's nearing 30°C so in short I really can't be bothered looking again for sources today however they're out there. –Davey2010^Talk 12:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Natural disambiguation is on principle preferred. Parentheses are only used when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title. Andrewa (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Inconsistency

I can see why the channel page is still at Logo TV (as in seeing the exact reason why, but I disagree with the outcome) while the list of programs broadcast page just calls it Logo? If it was good enough for the List of programs broadcast page why isn’t it good enough for the channel page? Shouldn’t Comlon Name policy kick in?

Addendum: Bravo’s web domain is Bravotv.com but the channel’s Wikipedia page is Bravo (U.S. TV network). Considering such was used in previous discussions as part of the argument I feel it should be refuted--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this now a Zombie Network

Is Logo even a functioning entity anymore, or has it become a Zombie network? Programming seems like they have given up and programming nothing but single programming for hours on end. Given the dysfunction of cable networks under Paramount’s control, Wikipedia needs a new categorization for these types of “channels” that just take up space on cable services. ClevelandExPat (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to LOGO? No format to speak of and endlessly running "My Pillow" Fat Guy commercials?? At least...get rid of the Fat (Mike Lindell) Guy! 2607:FB91:D3C:C1EC:4353:954D:CBF8:C235 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]