Jump to content

Talk:Channel 3 (Thailand)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Channel 3 (Thailand) → National Broadcasting Network (Thailand) — Real name. Also please lock from moving, Paul 012 always reverting to false info 125.25.34.117 (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source to support your move proposal. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still hoping to get further input from you; if you can provide proper sources for your claims, they should be added to the article. The semi-protection doesn't affect that. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Content dispute

[edit]

I see that Paul 012 revert to the very old version of the article. And I don't think that he's Thai. He moved back to Channel 3 (Thailand), I'm not Thai either. I'm American, but I lived in Thailand for 3 years already! I see in Paul 012's user page and I see the history of the page, he put many "away"'s and "wikibreak"'s, and I see in Thai article of him, and I use translator and he is not around!

I requested for move back to National Broadcasting Network (Thailand) over redirect, and let the admins lock the page. Protect: Edit for everyone and move for sysops, and block Paul 012 (He's strange vandalizer).--125.25.34.117 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks, thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will also need to provide reliable sources to verify your edits to the article in order for them to be kept. I've never heard of National Broadcasting Network in Thailand, and Google does not suggest such a network exists either. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know about No Personal Attacks, but I don't think this is, because I didn't say any bad words, and I didn't see any "Personal Attacks", give me 2-3 days for me to put reliable sources.--125.25.208.219 (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groundlessly accusing other people of vandalism may be considered a personal attack. It would also be easier for everyone to follow the flow of edits and discussion if you create an account, since you seem to have non-static IP addresses; there are numerous advantages to creating an account. And please provide your sources before reinserting the disputed content. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, by your last revert you have broken the three-revert rule. I will leave the warning here instead of on your talk pages, since your IPs seem to change. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really, it's a large broadcast network in Thailand, but only few Thais know all of them, most of them like to watch channel 3 because it contains lots of interesting shows, while the rest of NBN's doesn't have so much entertainment like NBN3. NBN1, NBN3 and NBN4 can be viewed with normal TV (but NBN1 only viewed in Bangkok, I think, I don't know because I use cable), NBN2 can be viewed only via Teesat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.208.219 (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning for 125.25.34.117/125.25.208.219

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Paul_012 (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

References of NBN

[edit]

I think I found three already, maybe I will put it tomorrow.--125.25.82.148 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PUT IT NOW!!--118.172.189.233 (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I haven't seen you put it already. I think you mean "I WILL PUT IT NOW"--118.174.84.134 (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NBN4 is now called Earth!

[edit]

Subject said all.--118.172.189.233 (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I can help that American

[edit]

In the satellite it's called NBN-3 so I think he said the real.--125.25.41.162 (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

[edit]

I want to revert to NBN version, and do not revert now, I will provide references in the coming hours.--118.174.84.134 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI posting

[edit]

FYI, I've filed an ANI here. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observation re name

[edit]

I can't remember if it's still the same, but the channel's standard jingle always used to start with "Channel 3, Colour TV..." as far as I can remember (I live in Thailand approx half the year, but I'm not there now and can't check). Checking the channel's own web site, [1], we can see it calls itself TV3 - I can see no mention of "NBN3" anywhere on the site. It may be designated differently on satellite receivers, but abbreviations used by satellite broadcasters can not be taken as the authoritative names of the channels they carry - they'll often use their own abbreviations to disambiguate between different channels with similar actual names. A move to "Channel TV3 (Thailand)" might be warranted, but not to "NBN3". -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Channel 3 (Thailand). 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) 20:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 June 2022

[edit]
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. Extra disambiguator was not found to be needed. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 3 (Thailand) → Channel 3 (Thai TV channel) – The title format for these pages have changed from using (Country) as the disambiguator to (Nation adjective TV channel) and it's probably time for it to join up CreecregofLife (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CreecregofLife and Dekimasu, I didn't follow the NCBC discussion, but for subjects whose names already include the word channel, this seems redundant and doesn't offer benefit over the more succinct Channel 3 (Thailand), as no non-TV channels with these names exist in Thailand. I'm leaning toward opposing this move, as well as those for Channel 5 (Thailand), Channel 7 (Thailand), and Channel 8 (Thailand). --Paul_012 (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Radio channels exist. That’s why (Thai TV channel) CreecregofLife (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, no radio channels exist by these names in Thailand. Disambiguation is necessary only so far as to precisely identify the Wikipedia article about the subject. Disambiguating words and phrases are not supposed to identify the nature of subject—that's what the short description does. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reader doesn’t know that CreecregofLife (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for the reader to know that, and I just said above that that is irrelevant to the choice of disambiguator in the article title anyway. Please take a look at WP:Article titles#Disambiguation. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing against policy. Your entire argument is based on how it seems to you and not how it actually is. Your link is entirely unhelpful and does not support your case CreecregofLife (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read WP:Article titles#Disambiguation. It is policy and entirely backs up Paul_012's argument: According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. Polyamorph (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which Thai TV channel is. Again, policy backs me up. Not Paul's CreecregofLife (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. The policy clearly states as much detail as necessary. Paul argues adding TV channel is unnecessary detail. Hence their argument is backed up by policy. Yours is not, so you need to argue a convincing case for adding the extra detail. Polyamorph (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“Yours is not” Based on what? Your argument is entirely opinion-based, not policy based. For what reason is his argument backed up by policy? There is none provided. Everything I have said is 100% inarguably true. You couldn’t even prove his statements were backed up by policy, and you’re forcing me to do all the work, a burden I have already fulfilled CreecregofLife (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained, several times. The burden is indeed on you if you want to increase the detail of disambiguation to convince others that there is sufficient cause to do so per the policy WP:Article titles#Disambiguation that Paul_012 cited. Of course no one is forcing you to do anything and you may feel you have already said enough to convince others, which is fine. Polyamorph (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Olympic Channel was moved to include American TV channel in 2019. The detail will be increased because policy supports it and there hasn’t been sufficient argument against it. CreecregofLife (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What policy are you referring to? Polyamorph (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Naming Conventions (broadcasting CreecregofLife (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a guideline, not policy. Polyamorph (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So then why aren’t we following the guideline? Because right now, you are refusing to acknowledge that both the policy and the guideline are in my favor, making an impossible threshold to convince youCreecregofLife (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need convincing. I have made no argument either way for the move. The fact that WP:Article titles#Disambiguation is policy and requires titles to be concise without unnecessary disambiguation is the only point I have made in this thread. Polyamorph (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't proven the disambiguation unnecessary CreecregofLife (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several users have argued here that the disambiguation is not necessary. Polyamorph (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they clearly haven’t CreecregofLife (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move The way I wrote my proposal would support Paul_012's interpretation.
Where it can be reasonably expected that all of the articles with the same base name will be of the same type...
A reader can reasonably expect that almost all of the articles with the same base name of "Channel 3" relate to television. The disambiguation page Channel 3 lists one entry titled Channel 3 that is unrelated to television, the band Channel 3 (band). The reason that section was written as it was was to prevent unnecessarily long page names in exactly this case.
I will note that there was some discussion on this in the NCBC RfC in that one user, Gonnym, specifically opposed the prioritization of WP:CONCISE over WP:CONSISTENT—both sections of the policy page Wikipedia:Article titles—on this issue and shared the perspective held in this discussion by CreecregofLife. The adopted text supports the page title of Channel 3 (Thailand) over Channel 3 (Thai TV channel). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What adopted text? How is (Thai TV channel) too long? This opposition is making less sense by the minute CreecregofLife (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By adopted text, I'm referring to the RfC text: User:Sammi Brie/NCBC (which I need to actually, you know, put in project space). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support (or network if this is a network as the article says it is). Thanks Sammi for the ping. A stand-alone "country" qualifier is meaningless. "Channel x" while it sounds like a TV channel, it can also be a station (Channel 3 (Cambodia)) or a network ((Channel One (Albania)). Having the qualifier makes these very clear at a glance. This also helps fix the long-standing issue with TV stations / channels / networks where editors have made a huge mess of, while removing the qualifier just makes it worse. I'll also note that a guideline should never be accepted with minimal support. These types of things should never be "who has more votes?", but also "does it have a minimal quorum?", which 6 is not it (and 4/6 is really not enough support). As such I do not believe this guideline (or section of the guideline) has actually community support. Also, just to be clear, as always I think Sammi Brie is doing an incredible job in this area, but this is one part we don't agree upon. Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will just say this on the channel/station/network issue. This process made me really attentive to that wording. People are all over the place in the world at large. It's no small wonder we've been, too. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I’ve been making the moves, I have been taking note of specific channel/network wording, though that’s mostly to spot the country’s adjective (like Argentine over Argentinian, I was perplexed but still had some semblance of understanding) CreecregofLife (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on premature move closure

[edit]
In light of the objection, I had reverted my close and was about to suggest reverting the other three moves, withdrawing this, and starting a multimove request. However, the reversion of the close itself was not an indication that the move could not go through. I had written: There appears to be a rock paper scissors problem here. The "first" disambiguator is (TV channel), but since that remains ambiguous, the country is added as a "second" disambiguator. However, this will be considered overspecific when these are treated as three disambiguators (Thai+TV+channel) rather than two (Thai+"TV channel") or if aiming for concision.
Next, this yielded an edit conflict because my self-reversion was reverted by CreecregofLife and the move was reinstated. The move is clearly not uncontroversial, since someone has objected to it. The original error was mine in interpreting the move as uncontroversial, and I apologize for short-circuiting the original discussion. However, I have never had one of my closes "reinstated" by an involved party after I reopened the discussion, and I am not able to negotiate the reversion of my reopening now. I strongly suggest that CreecregofLife undo the "reclosing" and I will leave a note at WT:RM just in case. Dekimasuよ! 02:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CreecregoLife, you wrote in your edit summary, "Contesting the move doesn’t mean the page moves back. It’s still an uncontroversial move." I thought "it seemed unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move," but since that is not the case, WP:RMUM and WP:RMCM apply. This is a recent move, which I self-reverted to the status quo, and it should not be reinstated on the basis of my self-reverted close. There is no reason this can't be given the normal week of discussion for possibly controversial moves. Dekimasuよ! 02:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it wasn't an error. There was no reason to assume that it would be controversial. The move is 100% correct CreecregofLife (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the move and reinstated the RM discussion as it is a controversial undiscussed page move. Let the discussion take its course and an admin will close once consensus is clear Polyamorph (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed. The move was proposed and agreed to. That is discussion. CreecregofLife (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed only very briefly and contested during that discussion. There was no consensus to move and the admin that initially did so reverted their own actions after realising they'd made a mistake, which is perfectly fine. Requested move discussions typically remain open for at least 7 days. You must wait for an admin to close the discussion and gauge consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn’t contested during the discussion, it was contested after. This is why the discussion shouldn’t have reopened because now all the closure info isn’t at hand when discussing the procession. CreecregofLife (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is it was moved prior to any discussion. Hence it was an undiscussed move that was contested. Therefore reverting the move back to the status quo and waiting for the discussion to conclude is the correct course of action here. Polyamorph (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2022 (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.

Confusion with Malaysian TV3

[edit]

Hey there, it seems like someone confused this Channel 3 with the Malaysian one. In the first section, it says:

"On 1 January 1985, it launched its first teletext service known as Infonet. On 1 January 1987, started to air in stereo and, during the 1990s, its stereo broadcast was introduced into its VHF free-to-air station nationwide. TV3 was also experimenting with bilingual transmission using a second audio track in the 1990s."

The other sections call it Channel 3, but this calls it TV3. The Infonet link also links to the Malaysian one, showing that it is, in fact, owned by the Malaysian TV3. I also hear no one call it TV3 in Thailand as I go there almost every year (since I'm half Thai), and everyone calls it ช่อง ๓/3 (which translates to Channel 3) but not TV3. Did the person who put this section in confuse it with the Malaysian TV3? Yoshi1423 (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article has for a long time suffered from a huge amount of IP vandalism and poor quality edits. I don't know of the accuracy of the statement, but the content in question was added in this edit by a user who had habit of messing up articles by hijacking a topic and trying to turn it into one about a different country (example). The "TV3" discrepancy was due to it being left over in a later rewrite. An earlier version added by an IP said the same but gave the year as 1980. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Channel_3_(Thailand)&oldid=1200783036"