Talk:Nickelodeon (Australia and New Zealand)

Television: Nickelodeon / Stations High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Nickelodeon task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force.

Australia: Television Low‑importance

	Australia portal Nickelodeon (Australia and New Zealand) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian television (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Fair use rationale for Image:Nick ident.PNG

Image:Nick ident.PNG 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 12:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viacom

Nick & Nick are both half owned by Nickelodeon Australia Inc., which according to [1], is owned by Viacom. Reubot (talk) 07:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nickelodeon logo.gif

Image:Nickelodeon logo.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesy Much?

Anyone else think that Nickelodeon is cheap and uses cheesy idents? An orange blob with a plain black background... Where as when you look at the US counterpart, they are at a whole new level.

Image copyright problem with File:Nickelodeon logo.svg

The image File:Nickelodeon logo.svg 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. --17:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logo use, before Sept. 09

How long was the logo of Nick Australia used (I mean ) 24.183.52.110 (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon here in Australia is still using the splat type logo as of October 2009 aafuss (aafuss|talk) 16:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what kind? Is it Image:Nickelodeon logo.svg,Image:Nickelodeon8409PNG.PNG, Image:Nick pk.png, Image:Nickcom logo.png, or Image:Nick-logo.svg? 24.183.52.110 (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they use Image:Nickcom logo.png right now. 216.180.209.98 (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon here in Australia is still using the splat type logo and no one at Foxtel has advised anyone if the logo is changing to ). aafuss (aafuss|talk) 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

@Amakuru: In regards to the page move, I'd like to open up this discussion about what the name of the article should be. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting), I believe the correct naming protocol should be: "Nickelodeon (Australian and New Zealand TV channel)", as this adheres to the protocol and the standard of other pages. The example provided is "Channel 5 (British TV channel)" SatDis (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SatDis: the purpose of the disambiguator is to quickly identify the specific topic for the reader, where there is some ambiguity. In this case with topics called Nickelodeon in other parts of the world. As such, the disambiguator should be as short as is necessary to do that identification, which also complies with the WP:CONCISE part of the article title policy. Adding TV channel on to the end of this disambiguator adds absolutely nothing to it, since we already know there are no things called Nickolodeon in Australia and New Zealand that aren't TV channels. It just adds extra guff for readers to read for no benefit; and the title has been stable at this name for some time now too. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: Understood, thanks for sharing the explanation. I guess I'm just fascinated that other Nickelodeon pages have "Asian TV channel", "Latin American TV channel", "British and Irish TV channel"... it makes the Australian one appear incorrect, seeing as all the others follow the protocol. And in terms of my thought process, I see "Nickelodeon (Australia and New Zealand)"... and I think "Australia and New Zealand what???" I know the Disney Channel (Australian TV channel) page was changed from "(Australia and New Zealand)" because that was incorrect. I'd be interested to see what others think, or if we are keeping it the same just because that's the way it has always been? Again, I do understand... just posing some questions for thought. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support moving to include the noun TV channel to the disambiguator Ollieinc (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: @Ollieinc: A further argument is that the Australian "Nick Jr." page was moved from "Nick Jr. (Australia)" to "Nick Jr. (Australian TV channel)" in July 2019, and from "Nick Jr. (Australian TV channel)" to "Nick Jr. (Australia and New Zealand channel)" in November 2019. It would make sense for the Nick Jr. and Nickelodeon pages to match with the correct naming protocols. SatDis (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The correct naming protocols are actually to use the country only, see WP:NCBC#Disambiguation WP:CONCISE, which states where it can be reasonably expected that all of the articles with the same base name will be of the same type … disambiguation can be done by country and then by state/province or city if necessary. As only TV channels use this base name for Australia and New Zealand, the disambiguation should not be changed. Happily888 (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - leaving aside the TV channel issue, I think the disamboguators are unclear in this case. If we have Nickelodeon (Australian TV channel) but then also separately Nickelodeon (Australian and New Zealand TV channel), that's not really obvious disambiguation. Someone watching in Australia isn't going to be able to differentiate them purely based on whether it's the one that also showed in new Zealand. I'd suggest some extra disambiguation is needed. — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: @Happily888: Okay, thanks. I'm happy to let this one go. In terms of the two similar articles, perhaps something like "pay-TV" and "free-to-air" is needed for disambiguation. I'm not sure exactly how that would look. SatDis (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 April 2025

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: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 18:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon (Australia and New Zealand) → Nickelodeon (Australian and New Zealand TV channel) – WP:NCBC 162 etc. (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 162 etc. (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: What is the objection here? 162 etc. (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to less concise and more long-winded disambiguators is not helpful for readers. The current ones are great and do the job, and the Nickelodeon one has been discussed before. I'd object to all of the above if I could, because clearly the bold moves by Intrisit were beneficial for the project, but I guess they were undiscussed so I can't do that. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bold moves directly contradict our longstanding naming convention at WP:NCBC, and are not beneficial. The full disambiguation is necessary "if the title shares a name with unlike topics." In this case, Viva and Nickelodeon can refer to things that aren't TV channels ("unlike topics") and therefore the full disambiguation tag is used. If you disagree with that, you're welcome to start a thread at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting), but in the meantime, these should be uncontroversially reverted. 162 etc. (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other topics that I know of that vie for the title "Viva (Brazil)" or "Nickelodeon (Australia and New Zealand)". In theory there could be something that's not a TV channel that shares the name, but in fact there isn't. Per WP:CONCISE, a title should be long enough to identify the topic but no longer than that, all other things being equal. Adding "TV channel" just adds verbiage for no particular reason. — Amakuru (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to discussion. Note that if no consensus forms, Nickelodeon (Australian and New Zealand TV channel) is the stable title. 162 etc. (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above. The present title is more WP:CONCISE and there is no ambiguity. There isn't some other entity called "Nickelodeon" in Australia and New Zealand that means we have to add extra words to the disambiguator. And "Nickelodeon (Australian and New Zealand TV channel)" is not the stable title, where do you get that from? It briefly occupied that title in 2018 and 2023, but was reverted both times. For the rest of its history it's occupied the present title. — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We seriously don't need a specific further disambiguator for this title, which by the way removing the DABber though, Nickelodeon by itself stands as the primary topic over the redirect Nickelodeon (TV channel) via a 2011 RM. That said, the other similar requests the nominator put at RMTR within the previous week as at this writing were executed to little opposition. Should this not be moved, Amakuru, use this RM as the rationale to send the titles reverted via RMTR to their previous states. Thanks! Intrisit (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.