Talk:Discovery Channel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Discovery Channel 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of October 30, 2005.

| Travel and Adventure missing in the list of channels! Travel and Adventure is not one of their US channels. Mhking 03:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Edits made by Discovery Communications IP address

Just a heads up that this article has been edited by an IP address belonging to Discovery Communications, the company that owns the Discovery Channel. The IP address is: 198.147.10.56. Here's the geolocation info: http://dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall.ch?ip=198.147.10.56 . Note this change in the article's history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discovery_Channel&diff=next&oldid=97844967. The edits are pro-Discovery in tone, and, specifically, the reference to guerrilla marketing has been removed.

This may be related to a recent negative article written about Discovery's guerilla marketing tactics: http://spankmymarketer.com/the-learning-channel.html. The pro-Discovery changes were made shortly after the publication of the negative article.--72.174.188.178 17:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIP

Soo... this is my first AIP. I'm looking at this article and thinking that the lead section is too long. What else needs to be fixed this week? Jacqui ★ 03:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • My first also. I feel that the the Censored and Diversity sections have no meaning to the article. They aren't really takling about Discovery Channel, rather about productions done by the Discovery Channel. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps they could be worked into some sort of more generic section on programming created about current events? The Discovery Channel does do a good deal of those, but I don't know why the individual one on this page deserves its own attention. Jacqui ★ 03:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. As part of a long article they might fit but now it's like a set of monster truck tires on a beetle: they don;t fit and you can't get anywhere as long as they're there. Coll7 06:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
By the way, regarding the Censored section, I checked who contributed that and also what other things they had contrubuted, and they had mostly spammed other entries with the same paragraph (or similar). I'm going to take that one out now. If anyone comes by later who disagrees with the three of us so far, revert me and we'll talk more here. (Also, if we want to mention it in passing at some later point, we have the edit history to get it back) Jacqui ★ 07:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we remove the redirect of Discovery Health Channel back to this page? DHC is its own network and I'd like to build a page for it, but I can't as long as the redirect is there...Scarletsmith 06:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If you'll write it go ahead and take it off. Just make sure to put a link to discovery channel on that page and vice versa. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Discovery Health Channel article written. Thanks! Scarletsmith 23:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] censored and spam

How is Spam an accurate term for posting facts? I make no claims to my talents as a writer, however I ask that you allow FACTS to remain. Relevance is relative. Here are the other articles mentioned by Jacqui, most contributions are unpopular, however all are true and most have managed to remain and expand, despite repeated removal: Wang Xia Falun Gong Paul A. Bonacci Gary Caradori Bunnatine Greenhouse Conspiracy of Silence Yorkshire Television The Franklin Coverup David H. Safavian

  • I'm not sure if I'm the Jacqui you're talking about, or if you mean someone else, but I've never seen most of those links in my life. In any case, the facts remain at Conspiracy of Silence, etc. THis is a page about the Discovery Channel, itself. Please respect that. There are see also links on this page, and that is one of them. Thanks. Jacqui ★ 00:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Reading back on my comments, I do realize that "spammed" was not the verb I meant. It was inflammatory and I'm sorry. What I meant was that the user has been contributing to Wikipedia mostly regarding this topic, in a number of places. Oh, and by the way, please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Jacqui ★ 01:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This subject was posted on Wikipedia:Third_opinion. My opinion is that Conspiracy of Silence should not have its own section.

I removed the remaining sentence detailing this claim as it was (and had remained) uncited for almost 1 year now.Jvandyke 03:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idea

I'm going to go to bed now and come back and do some of this later, but I just thought of the fact that we can use "what links here" to see what other articles link here, and what they say about TDC. That information may be helpful for us. Jacqui ★ 07:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] official name?

What exactly is the official name of the network? Is it TDC, Discovery, or Discovery Communications, inc.? Also about the sub-networks, should we include a brief line or two about it or just link to that network's page? Gflores 00:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The offical name is Discovery Channel, as seen on their official site.
Discovery Channel is the brand that is primarily a cable network. Discovery Communications is the parent organization.

[edit] Brought to you by...

This really reads like a discovery channel advertisement - complete with logos. It would be interesting to see some facts about corporate organization, etc. If such might be considered wirthy, I'd be happy to do the research myself

  • I've used SEC filings by Discovery Holding Company to insert information on Discovery Communications Inc. the company which owns and manages the Discovery Channel. I'd recommend that 1) someone cleanup the information - I quoted fairly extensively 2) a separation of Discovery Channel and Discovery Communications -- currently they are the same page which is confusing.Jvandyke 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I figured out how to fix the redirect. I've moved all the Discovery Communications information to that respective page, put a 'see [Discovery Channel]' pointer and removed the content that was previously here. You may want to reduce the amount of information about Discovery Communications such as the details on the other channels besides Discovery Channel..Jvandyke 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Taglines

Wasn't "explore your world" a Discovery Channel tagline at one time? Want confirmation before I put this in. Dwp49423 23:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, it was. They used it until 2002.

[edit] Retail outlets

Did they take over The Nature Company? I did a Google search for The Nature Company, and it directed me to the Discovery Channel Stores. If so, this should be noted, as well as a page created for The Nature Company, with the latter categorized under "Defunct US retail chains."

[edit] Criticism

At least in Canada, they've really watered down their science programming. They have shows that don't really deal with science at all, and they even have blatant pseudoscience shows (The Haunting). I doubt that I'm the only one annoyed at this. Could we add a criticism section? --Havermayer 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that request.--84.175.219.172 09:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I.. third it. I think it's ridiculous to see a show on a channel that claims to be scientific followed by "Based on a story by..." Berry2K 17:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
And let's not forget the neverending stream of "Jesus: The Sordid New Scandal" and "Jesus: Was he a male prostitute?" type of shows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.184.123.58 (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
I also agree. I really love Discovery, but some of the crap that they try to pass off as science is unbelievable. I remember they had a show about "chemtrails" a few weeks ago. The people they had on that were living in reality were only allowed a few minutes or even seconds of air time for a full hour show. And one of the "experiments" to test if there actually was aluminium oxide in contrails was to put a dish outside on a rock and let it catch the raid that was coming down. The rain the guy caught was dripping off his aluminium rain gutter!B3nnic33 13:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
so... what's happening with this criticism idea? did it somehow succumb to another 'conspiracy of silence'? a channel which uses claims of producing scientific programmes to market itself CAN'T have no criticism - it's simply unamerican! besides, they show a lot of non-scientific stuff, and neither do i see them supporting their programmes with appropriate citations. does any independent group review their content for facticity? that's the least we could do, yes? Alveolate (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

there is nothing to critisize about discovery channel. Basicly there trying to prove something like a haunting for an example there trying to prove that ghosts exsist.get my point, so don't make a criticism section and they don't say that all the shows are scientific.(Jesus and God are real)Dudemanvango (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if we say that is true, they have no place on a science channel. I personally am annoyed by the increase in amount of car themed shows with the introduction of discovery science, discocery civisation etc. --Armanalp (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And thats why they have The Science Channel. Its a documentary channel anyways.Dvferret (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SILENCE!

  • What happened to Conspiracy of Silence? WizardDuck 20:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the sentence detailing Conspiracy of Silence as it was (and had remained) uncited for almost 1 year now. Do you have a citation?Jvandyke 05:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm dropping the whole issue. WizardDuck 23:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Flightthatfoughtback.jpg

Image:Flightthatfoughtback.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 09:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cycling sponsorship drop

Just a note/reminder that at the end of this professional road cycling season (ending October 20 with Giro di Lombardia), the Discovery Channel will no longer be the title sponsor of the Capital Sports & Entertainment managed cycling team now known as "Discovery Channel." I am not removing/editing the information from the page at the moment as it is still current and correct, and the linked to "professional cycling team" WP page correctly notes the upcoming sponsorship drop. Ptrimby 05:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Commercial Song

Does anyone know what the song is for the latest Discovery ads that came with the April 2008 logo change? DY (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I Love the World --Golf1052 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)