Talk:Sky Group/Archives/2014

Revert merger

I know this is almost a year late, but I'd like to propose that the merger of this article and Sky (UK and Ireland) should be reversed. The argument for the merger was based on the incorrect notion that the two articles dealt with the same subject (a company). That is not true, and I'd argue that BSkyB should be about the company, while Sky (UK and Ireland) should be about the platform. The platform is probably the company's most important product, but BSkyB is also involved in broadcasting TV channels, commissioning content, on-line services, broadband etcetera. At the moment the article tries to cover both subjects and becomes quite messy as result.

There is also the odd situation where products made for the platform like Sky+, Sky+ HD and Freesat from Sky have their own articles, but the platform itself does not.

This article is in need of some restructuring and pruning, and doesn't benefit from having more information merged into it. The History section is very much a collection of disparate events with no real narrative and would benefit from being organised into sections based on topic. Väsk (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Its only been 8 months ;) I going to say no, unless you going to able to overhaul the old page. Last Entry: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sky_(UK_and_Ireland)&oldid=562522359 If its just going to end up just like that, its pointless. It had very little actually information, and all the Tech information was unreferenced. If your suggesting it comes back, and was overhauld with newer information, more reference etc then I might change my mind. With out further details I sticking with no. What is the differnce between the Company and the platform? Since I see them as one. When it comes to the history, Im confused about your suggestion since its already based on topics. I would disagree it requires any major pruning or restructuring, but a tidy up to simplify yet keeping nearly all the details could be agreed.--Crazyseiko (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the old page about the platform will need significant improvement and expansion, if not a complete overhaul. The platform is an important part of the company's business and will of course still be heavily referred to in this article. But there is much information that would be better presented if properly structured in an article that deals solely with the platform. Such information would be subscriber milestones, carriage agreements, EPG overhauls and technical information that are currently sprinkled around various sections of this article. As for this article, it would be improved if some of the information from the history section was moved to dedicated sections about the company's activities, allowing the history section to focus on big picture changes. I'll recreate an improved version of the article about the platform later on so you'll get an idea of what I mean. Väsk (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Requesting an edit to this article

My name is Nell and I work for Finsbury. In the interest of complete transparency I would state that I am using this account to assist the Wikipedia community by reporting inaccurate information relating to my client, BSkyB. We have noted a recent addition in the first sentence of this article which incorrectly states that BSkyB is a “monopoly.” This was added by Helmboy earlier today. This is, in this context, factually inaccurate. I would refer you to Wikipedia’s own page for the correct definition of a monopoly: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Monopoly.

I would like to request that a member of this community removes the reference to “monopoly” as soon as possible.

Many thanks.WikiUser370 (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Without a Reliable Source describing BSkyB neutrally as a monopoly, (and not necessarily even then) clearly the claim cannot stand. Removed. Bonusballs (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much WikiUser370 (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)