Talk:Boomerang (Canadian TV channel)

File:CNNewLogo.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:CNNewLogo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:CNNewLogo.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN

User:Steam5, please read the above link carefully and stop edit warring. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This issue has now been resolved. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Content removal dispute

@User:ViperSnake151: Link to those "standard conventions for use of that template", specifically citing this type of case, please and thank you? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not a strictly written rule. It is just a standard norm for infoboxes, that only you are perpetuating. That field defines ownership, not ownership of rights to the brand. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:ViperSnake151: So are you planning to remove similar content from infoboxes across the numerous other channels that have it as well? Also, you haven't explained your reasoning for the image removal at all... and by the way, it's BRD, not BRRD. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It has never used that logo. It does not make sense there even if {{pd-ineligible}}. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:ViperSnake151: You didn't answer my first question at all! As for the logo, I obviously can't link to a stream from the channel itself to prove you wrong, so instead here's a clip from the official Teletoon YouTube channel that shows that logo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPJVbDaBUOU

Non-notable pre-launch promotion. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:ViperSnake151: "Non-notable"? Why? Even if it is, the fact remains that your statement above ("It has never used that logo.") has now been proven incorrect. Also, you still haven't obtained consensus for the other portion of your WP:BRD-violating editing here (and it isn't just me who has been "perpetuating" it - in fact, it wasn't even my idea to begin with!). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to mention that it licensed the brand, maybe in the lead instead? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:ViperSnake151: The problem with simply doing that is that the infobox arguably becomes misleading, since the owner is still listed. Casual readers (who might only view the infobox) might think that the ownership of the brand itself is split up, rather than merely being licensed. Also, since this isn't the only channel that this issue concerns, I think this debate should be discussed somewhere more general. (Thanks for finally responding, by the way - better late than never, right?) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Videotron now carries CN

https://twitter.com/igorgutman/status/583807976223412225 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.167.219 (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Cartoon Network on Rogers

I'm currently watching Cartoon Network on Rogers Cable (Ontario) on the same channel where Teletoon Retro (R.I.P) used to be. However it's still listed as Teletoon Retro and follows the same schedule. According to Disney Channel's website, Rogers will carry that channel on September 3. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)MarcoPolo250

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cartoon Network (Canada). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140401110028/http://www.muchmusic.com:80/tv/childrenshospital/ to http://www.muchmusic.com/tv/childrenshospital/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of programming list

User:Davey2010 and User:Mrschimpf, your repeated removals of the programming list on this article are completely unjustified. If it is sourcing you are looking for, any WP:RS is permitted, including e.g. channel websites and program guides. The fact that they expire simply means that they may need to be archived to remain usable (if such archiving does not in fact happen before it is too late, that is a different story).

But for many years now there has been a basically permanent archive of Canadian TV program logs, up to 2015 at ftp://support.crtc.gc.ca/logs/ and since 2014 at http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/800106c1-0b08-401e-8be2-ac45d62e662e which is required to be 100% accurate insofar as it is possible. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to delete the list, and I feel that it must be restored at once.

This also applies at Télétoon Rétro, where my attempt to add such a source was reverted with a borderline nonsensical edit summary. (Strangely, Teletoon Retro's list remains untouched.) Modernponderer (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note: as the other user in this discussion has apparently decided they WP:OWN all of the following related articles, this discussion now concerns Cartoon Network (Canada), Adult Swim (Canada), Teletoon Retro, and Télétoon Rétro. Modernponderer (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The list fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE and as such the removal is justified. –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Davey2010, Wikipedia has already judged your opinion in that regard to be ridiculous, and therefore something to ignore entirely.

As proof, see this, and count how many pages are there: Template:Lists of TV programs by country Modernponderer (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" and the community overall haven't "judged my opinion to be ridiculous" at all, Well dipshit if you believe "my opinion should be ignored entirely" then don't fucking ping me!, Do us all a favour and go read WP:NOTTVGUIDE and stop wasting everyones fucking time, Don't ping me again. –Davey2010^Talk 21:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you actually understand what a TV guide is? I won't ping you if you don't want me to, but YOU asked me to discuss this with you: in case you don't remember

Not that I'm surprised you didn't actually want to discuss it at all, of course. (And by the way, blatant violations of Wikipedia:Civility are not tolerated here.) Modernponderer (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I do however the list STILL fails it, Hang on you've just sat there and said "my opinion should be ignored" and then 2 minutes later you're complaining "because I don't want to discuss it" ...., Anyway by all means go to ANI - I'll grab the popcorn!. –Davey2010^Talk 21:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to ignore the baiting (again), but here's the thing: a list of programming is NOT in any way, shape, or form a TV guide as it is missing numerous requirements – it has no scheduled times, for example! You will never find an actual TV guide without this. Therefore, it is not one.

Are you aware the pages in that template have survived numerous deletion discussions? What else do you need to believe in the consensus? Modernponderer (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Ugggh, you're back on this BS again, Modernponderer? 🙄 (Yeah, I'm tired of this so I am bringing out an emoji here.) Let's improve the encyclopedia than continuing to claim you're 'fighting' this battle which was judged to be unactionable because we're doing what we're supposed to do; keep the encyclopedia neutral.

Once again; cartoonnetwork.ca is wholly unacceptable as a WP:PRIMARY source. That's what I base my removal of the list on, because we plain just don't source things to an entity's own webpage. It's sourced to one page which is designed to act as an WP:ADVERT, and I'm not wanting to take this page in this direction. And no, I'm not going to source to the CRTC's FTP site on this. That's not its purpose. It's meant for regulatory purposes, not to tell us the obvious that Adventure Time is on this channel, which the Cartoon Network list-of already tells us just fine. Also, it's an FTP site. Not a website. A website is on the World Wide Web. Sourcing to a bunch of random textfiles without context is ridiculous (and there's no sane contributor here that will go through "List of television program logs submitted by television undertakings" and try to find proof that some random show aired on August 4, 2016 in https://applications.crtc.gc.ca/OpenData/Television%20Logs/BroadcastLogs_2016_Q3_M8.csv; you really want to source to a freakin' Excel spreadsheet?! The basic standard for sourcing here is it should be accessible in one click, on a website, without having to download anything to open a file! On an iPad something like that should just open, but the document was so large (almost 1GB! Ummmm, no! And nope, not playing 'Ctrl+F (some show)', America's least-loved game in a gigabyte file to find sources!), it crashed Safari. We can't use something that broad and large to source.).

And the last contrib on this page was an IP drive-by just throwing on random shows without a source or context. That's what I would term as vandalism usually.

The WP:NOTGUIDE policy exists for a purpose; so this article isn't three-fourths list, one-fourths actual description of the network and its purpose. I don't care that it doesn't give timeslots or day of airing; it's enough to act as an ADVERT for the channel without any context or neutrality. If you're going to play WP:OWN with any Canadian kid's network, then you shouldn't be here. We're not Cartoon Network's advertising agency. And dragging this to ANI will be useless because I can just copy and paste this just as well and get backing from admins that this was the right thing to do. Please start contributing, use common sense regarding sources and stop nitpicking. Nate • (chatter) 00:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably against my best judgement to even respond here, as you WP:OWNers have already "won" this battle... but in case someone else comes across this discussion:

1. Administrators are not allowed to judge content disputes at all. (It was decided that your edit warring was not severe enough for sanctions.)
2. Channel websites, as well as official TV listings, are wholly acceptable as sources here. The very notion that they are not would get you laughed off of WP:RSN.
3. WP:SOURCEACCESS: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Not sure how you could miss that.
4. Wikipedia:No personal attacks – if I were not here to contribute, I would not be taking the time to explain basic policy to you. Modernponderer (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access.

Yeah, no. I can at least pay money or go to a library to access a source easily. I have no problem with that. What I'm not going to do is spend days searching through thousands of lines of programming logs to come to an obvious conclusion easily found through a simple search and source we've already done on List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network. Once again, WP:COMMONSENSE outweighs having to load down my computer with several gigs of Excel spreadsheets and developing a case of carpal tunnel while blurring by whatever Omni Television aired on a random winter Friday. And once again, the burden was on you to prove an edit war existed. Clearly, none was found and Davey and I had no edit warring to begin with. And again, we don't depend on a WP:PRIMARY source for an entire article. Otherwise, we'd have TVTrope-length articles about some kind of kid's show minutiae nobody in the known world cares about except extreme fans.

Finally, I don't consider that I've 'won' anything. What I have done is have to waste time I could spend editing once again trying to remind you we are not a free advertising service and our edits should be impartial and neutral. I'm done here, and I'm sure Davey has moved on from this too. Stop trying to die on the hill of defending the list of programming for a kid's channel which is a literal Ctrl+C of the American version outside a few shows. Nate • (chatter) 08:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, we most certainly are done here after this last point. There is little point in explaining inclusion policy to deletionists.

Once again, though, to benefit future discussion: the list of programming is often vastly different between the original version of a channel and any international version, and in the case where the ownership is different (which to my knowledge is only true for the Canadian version of Cartoon Network, as opposed to all others) that is even more likely to be true. Modernponderer (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

So we just decided it was suddenly OK to randomly wipe out a list of programs airing on a local version of an American network, regardless of the opinions of viewers of said local version who rely on that page as a resource? On top of that, now it's OK speculate on future events, like whether or not Adult Swim will return to its original run-time (Spoiler Alert: it's not) instead of actually citing our sources and providing concrete evidence to back our claims? It's official: a spoiled rich kid is more deserving of donations than this website. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

cartoonnetwork.ca/schedule/ exists to allow you to check the schedule to your heart's content. For the most part outside a few exceptions which I have added to the article, it carries basically the same shows as the American network which is covered by the main list-of. As for the program list, in six months, not one additional source has been floated to source this list. One source besides the network's website and an unnavigable series of government Excel files. One source is all we asked. That one source hasn't been added, thus it won't be a part of this article. Davey and I cited multiple policies as to why this won't be allowed (ADVERT, NOTTVGUIDE, NEUTRAL, PRIMARY). Don't like it, you don't have to contribute here. Nate • (chatter) 03:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Have reverted my edit to restore a small programming list having seen this discussion but I would suggest that a small list of original programming by this channel would be appropriate, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Move Page, Merge with Teletoon Retro

Boomerang is a continuation of Teletoon Retro with the same license. There are no separate pages for Cartoon Network and the old Teletoon page, they are on the same one. This should be the case for all Canadian Channels that used the same license following a rebranding Goldeneyed (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

We go by channel space, not the brand or concept of a retro animation channel moving from channel to channel, especially with an eight-year gap between them. The reader understands much more easily the evolution of one channel rather than being awkwardly ping-ponged between a channel that died and one that took on an entirely new concept. Nate • (chatter) 01:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand completely. However if that is the case, why does the original channel Teletoon, not have its own page, while Teletoon Retro does? It's the exact same situation. Goldeneyed (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)