Talk:Nat Geo Wild

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nat Geo Wild article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

RM, National Geographic Wild → Nat Geo Wild, 17 January 2012, moved, discussion
RM, Nat Geo Wild → National Geographic Wild, 31 August 2012, not moved, discussion
RM, Nat Geo Wild → National Geographic Wild, 14 July 2018, no consensus, discussion

No information on National Geographic Wild HD

Hi

There is no section on "National Geographic Wild HD" And I believe (maybe incorrectly) for a long time it was non-simulcast of "National Geographic Wild (SD)" But I believe relatively recently (2010? 2010?) it became simulcast. Dones anyone have more detail? Stephen Howe (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List

Isn't the "Programming" list a bit long? 173.170.255.211 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think it should be split into a separate article titled List of programs broadcast by Nat Geo Wild. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership?

who owns and operates this channel? Is it similar to National Geographic? Thanks, 68.197.49.241 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just like NGC, NGW is is owned and operated by Fox Cable Networks and the National Geographic Society. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Geographic Wild → Nat Geo Wild – Since this page is going through a few name changes, their does need a discussion on the name. 'National Geographic Wild' may be the full name but is it used on-air and online and is it the common name? 'Nat Geo WILD' is close but uses improper capitalisation of 'Wild' when it is not an acronym (WP:MOSTM). 'Nat Geo Wild' is the common name and avoids improper capitalisation. [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 00:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well please cite an official document from the channel's owner that proves "Nat Geo Wild" is its official title and not National Geographic Wild. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Official names. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm not too familiar with this channel, but I believe "Nat Geo Wild" is correct per WP:COMMONNAME. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree that Nat Geo Wild is the most common name. In 2011 there were 277 news articles mentioning "Nat Geo Wild", compared to 41 for "National Geographic Wild". Jenks24 (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said from the actual channel itself, not a bunch of news articles. BTW the channel's website is animals.nationalgeographic.com. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is why Eagles linked you to WP:Official names above. In a nutshell, we don't use the official name to title articles, we use the most common name in reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well why isn't the Pennsylvania State University article called "Penn State" then? Everybody calls the school Penn State, nobody calls it Pennsylvania State University. Same thing with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, everyone calls it "Virginia Tech", nobody says its full name. Same with California Institute of Technology "Caltech", I could name another hundred examples. If we're going to have this "rule" it should be universal. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the relevant policy, "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." (my emphasis) There are, of course, exceptions to this "rule" and these exceptions are nearly always because the common name is in conflict with the principal naming criteria: recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. Can you explain why the proposed title would be worse than the current title in respect to those criteria? (And just as an FYI, Pennsylvania State University does seem to be more common than Penn State [1].) Jenks24 (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the rule has exceptions, why should we have it at all? Either have articles under their official names, or have them under their common names; you can't have it both ways because of something you found on Google. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All rules on Wikipedia have exceptions. If you think I'm trying to "have it both ways because of something [I] found on Google", then you've completely misunderstood my comments and I don't think I can help you any further. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2012 (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.

Requested move revert

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. The same rationale was raised and discussed in the prior move request, immediately above. If there is a good reason to move this back, it has not been articulated here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Geo Wild → National Geographic Wild – I think the previous move should be reverted because National Geographic Wild is the channel's full name. Nat Geo Wild is just a nickname. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, even if it is a nickname National Geographic are happy to use it in its logo. -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 00:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Requested move 14 July 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. See no general agreement to rename this page back to its original title. This article was originally titled by the proposed full name; and yet, "Nat Geo Wild" has been its title since 2012, so for now, that is the title that remains. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their args and try again in a few months to garner consensus for this name change. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 19:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Geo Wild → National Geographic Wild – Did they change the name to the full name, "National Geographic Wild"? I've been seeing ads and a new screen bug on their channel, and their Facebook page also shows a new logo. JE98 (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Hhkohh (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Nat Geo Wild's Facebook page is still using the abbreviated denomination in both name and on-screen logo on their videos. --Bankster (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Since the owner of the trademarks isn't consistently using one or the other, we should prefer the plain English one over the abbreviated gibberish one; see also MOS:ABBR, WP:RECOGNIZABLE. The Facebook materials appear to be more frequently maintained than the corporate website, so it's newer data anyway. Because the company itself no longer consistently uses the "abbrevi-branding", this has moved firmly into the realm of MOS:TM: We do not mimic stylized logos, and just use a plain-English version of a trademark when one is available. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC); MOS:TM note added, 11:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Their website still uses the abbreviated form for this channel and this is the WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"this is the WP:COMMONNAME" doesn't follow from what the website does. Their FB page, equally official, doesn't do that, and is probably more current (shows more recent signs of updating). It's unclear to me how it would be possible to do a proper common-name analysis, since innumerable hits for "Nat Geo Wild" are going to be from tables of TV listings in entertainment sites, which routinely abbreviate every word they can to save space. The fact of the matter is that "National Geographic Wild" is frequently used in sources, is easier to parse for our readers, and better complies with the WP:CRITERIA as a group, while the abbreviated form Nat Geo Wild will redirect to it anyway. The only thing the abbreviated version has going for it is WP:CONCISE, the least important of the criteria, especially when it conflicts with recognizability. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Their current Facebook profile picture does say "National Geographic Wild", but their facebook handle is "@natgeowild", and their display name is "Nat Geo Wild". And in their Facebook about section they refer to themselves as "Nat Geo Wild" twice. It looks like the facebook picture with the new logo was uploaded on July 12. Perhaps this indicates they are in the process of rebranding the channel, but until we have something more definitive, we should leave the article where it is. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SMcCandlish. We should stray away from using the abbreviations. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic we should move ESPN to "Entertainment and Sports Programming Network". Wikipedia policy says that article titles should be the WP:COMMONNAME, and this article's current name is the common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as strange sounding as this name is, it appears to be correct: [2] [3] [4]. National Geographic Society is the name of the organisation which provides the channel, but I can't find any sources to say the channel name is an abbreviation of "National Geographic Wild" or that this is a past or proposed future name for the channel. I recognise "Nat Geo" obviously comes from National Geographic, but that's just the source of the name. jamacfarlane (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I haven't seen any real evidence to this point of which is the common name, but "Nat Geo Wild" gets about 90K Google News hits, while "National Geographic Wild" gets under 4K. It also wins on Google Trends. I don't see any compelling reason to change the title at this point. Dekimasuよ! 21:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and above. "Nat Geo" is short for 'National Geographic', the name of the channel and the Society, and no need to nickname the background entities. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

For Edit

Hi. I want to edit but.. Can you do something with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Morton (AD) (talk • contribs) 11:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]