Talk:Fox Networks Group

Requested move 12 April 2016

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.

The result of the move request was: WITHDRAWN BY 76.235.284.47 (non-admin closure) CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 03:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

---

Fox Networks Group → Fox Networks Group; Fox Networks Group Europe; Fox Networks Group Latin America; & Fox Networks Group Asia – Fox Entertainment Group recently broke up its Fox International Channels division into Fox Networks Group Europe, Fox Networks Group Latin America, & Fox Networks Group Asia, while also discontinuing the FIC banner.[1] However, Fox Networks Group still exists as Fox Entertainment Group's non-sports cable networks group. – 76.235.248.47 (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Amakuru and 76.235.248.47: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Contesting, and suggest withdrawal or reformat - that great big mouthful of text is clearly not a suitable article title. @76.235.248.47: what is your intention here? Were you requesting for the article to be split into four separate articles, one for each region? Obviously there is more work involved in that than just making a page move, and I think it's debatable whether the individual networks are notable in their own right, rather than the consolidated article as it is at present. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  Comment - Well, @Amakuru:, I was unsure of how to list the new divisions that Fox International Channels was recently restructured/split into. I'm sorry if it was interpreted that I was requesting for the page for Fox Networks Group to be moved to a page titled Fox Networks Group Europe; Fox Networks Group; Fox Networks Group Europe; Fox Networks Group Latin America; & Fox Networks Group Asia. That was NOT what my intent was. My intent was to request that the international channels listing within the Fox Networks Group article be split into three articles, one for Fox Networks Group Europe, one for Fox Networks Group Latin America, & one for Fox Networks Group Asia. I suppose I figured that all that had to be done was to take the international channels listing from the article, split it into three separate listings, then place those listing in new articles for their respective channel groups. I made the request because the article, as it currently exists, contains incorrect information: Fox Networks Group is Fox Entertainment Group's American cable networks group. The former Fox International Channels division is NOT within Fox Networks Group. Also, from what I'm aware of, the templatebox (or whatever it's called) for Fox Entertainment Group (the infobox usually at the bottom of the article that links to the various properties within an organization) is also incorrect; there is no such division within Fox Entertainment Group called Fox Networks Group International. And, as far as a debate, anyone is welcome to chime in with their opinion as to whether or not it's worth it to have separate articles for each of the FNG divisions. Or, if it's easier, simply rename the article to Fox Networks Group (divisions), then place the listing for each FNG division within the article. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Speedy procedural close WP:RM is for move requests, not split requests. WP:SPLIT uses different processes, with different templates to indicate the process. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @70.51.45.100: I didn't realize there was a process for splitting articles. I suppose I should have gone with that instead of a move request. In fact, I'll request that this requested move be closed, then I'll request that the article be split instead. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment This proposal doesn't exactly follow the principle of conciseness found at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA though, does it?  DiscantX 11:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My response to that, @DiscantX: what about Discovery Communications's Discovery Networks Northern Europe, AMC Networks's AMC Networks International Central Europe, etc.? Would those follow the principle of concisesness found at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA? 76.235.248.47 (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Withdrawl Well, after looking through the comments here, as the nominator of this article for WP:RM, I am hereby withdrawing my nomination of this article for WP:RM. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Split proposal (withdrawn)

I am proposing that this article be split into Fox Networks Group, Fox Networks Group Europe, Fox Networks Group Latin America, & Fox Networks Group Asia.

Fox Entertainment Group recently broke up its Fox International Channels division into Fox Networks Group Europe, Fox Networks Group Latin America, & Fox Networks Group Asia, while also discontinuing the FIC banner.[2] However, Fox Networks Group still exists as Fox Entertainment Group's American cable networks group. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

So, just because FIC was split up does not mean they get separate articles. FIC was a unit of Fox Network Group, not Fox Network Group. The need to separately met NOTABILITY. One article from Variety doesn't make them notable. Also, there isn't much here to split. Best to incubate them here even if notable. The more articles WP, the more editors have to monitor for vandals. Spshu (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, not sure I understand all of that, but I'll point out another possible option, one that I actually suggested in the closed discussion above: rename the article to something like Fox Networks Group (divisions).....that way, the US Fox Networks Group division can then be listed alongside its international sister divisions within the article. 76.235.248.101 (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I'd going to withdraw the split proposal & ask for the article to be renamed to something like Fox Networks Group (divisions), that way, all of the Fox Networks Group divisions can be listed here. 76.235.248.101 (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 05 October 2016

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.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Fox Networks Group → Fox Networks Group (divisions) – Fox Networks Group is not the name for Fox Entertainment Group's cable networks group; what it is is the name for Fox's domestic (a.k.a. US) cable networks group. According to news articles put out recently, Fox recently restructured its Fox International Channels international cable networks group into three international cable networks groups, creating Fox Networks Group Europe, Fox Networks Group Latin America, and Fox Networks Group Asia. After proposing a split for the international channel groups from the US grouping, I was told that the three international groupings need to separately meet WP:NOTE (which they currently don't). So then, I figured a better option/idea was then to rename the article, after which the listings for the four groupings could be placed into the article under their own subsections. – 76.235.248.101 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• @76.235.248.101 and Andy M. Wang: What will be the page at "Fox Networks Group"? A titling guideline is that there should always be a page at the base page name. This request probably deserves an RM — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, could have "Fox Networks Group" be a re-direct to "Fox Networks Group (divisions)". As it is, someone looking for FNG might be looking for one of the international network groupings, not necessarily the US network group. 76.235.248.101 (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – The rationale is unclear; does not explain why a disambiguator is needed here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support & Comment - By the sound of it, 76.235.248.101 isn't calling for a disambiguation page, but for the article to be renamed to Fox Networks Group (divisions), wherein the four Fox Networks Group groupings (Fox Networks Group, FNG Europe, FNG Latin America, & FNG Asia) would be listed in their own subsections of the article, while currently existing FNG international articles (FNG Benelux, FNG Philippines, & FNG Portugal) could be deleted, as no such FNG groupings by those names exist. So, if anything, that's nothing of a disambiguation page. If anything, a disambiguation page would be nothing more than an article simply listing links to each page. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:347C:74CD:F431:5A42 (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment - 2602 pretty much explained what I meant. 76.235.248.101 (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
      • That parenthetical bit is what we typically refer to as a "disambiguator". Nothing about a disambiguation page. I still don't see why you'd want it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed title doesn't in any way comply with our naming conventions. And there's no reason why the proposed merges would be better at the proposed name than at the current one. The divisions of FNG can be covered by sections of the article at the current title, if they don't merit separate articles; Just merge and redirect. Plus, we would still want an article on FNG, surely? So if a separate article on the divisions is wanted, merge and redirect to Divisions of Fox Network Group. Andrewa (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fox Networks Group. 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/20140826115459/http://divorcecourt.com/about-the-show/ to http://divorcecourt.com/about-the-show/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Big Changes

Hi, i'm PLMad5002, and i have an explanation of my article version, with big changes. These are:

1. Grammar/Estetic edits - User Spshu is editing this article with no care of it's estetic (refernces in brackets, too much spaces everywhere, small letters on begginig of sentences, no spaces beetween commas etc.). Also, i think his native language isn't English, beacuse there some grammar errors (like Inkubation instead of Incubation). So i want to correct these errors and make article more estetic, making more brackets beetween longer sentences in Units section, or adding more redirects to other articles.

2. FX Networks Canada - In these articles: FX (Canada), FXX (Canada), there are an information that these 2 networks belongs in 66.64% to Rogers Media and in 33.36% to FX Networks LLC. So it makes sense to these 2 channels be mentioned in Units section as units of FX Networks. However, despite i have a SOURCE, Spshu still removes these, so i please for explonation from Spshu. Wikipedia cannot have articles with informations confuses with every other article.

3. FNG Europe table - I want to remove from this table Fox One, Fox Life Poland, not needed "X"'s from table and others, and add MondoFox (https://www.mondofox.it), FlopTV (https://www.floptv.tv/), FNG Turkey (http://fngturkey.com/) and change Mundo Fox Africa to MundoFox (Angola) (https://player.vivmais.co.ao/tv/epg/6). The sources about Fox One or Fox Life Poland (I live in Poland and FL in my country is nowhere in Television, and Fox One is nowhere on official Fox Italy page) may be out of date, unlike official FNG Europe pages or local TV channels lists, which references to these are still removing by Spshu.

4. FNG India (only in Units section) - The sources that Spshu added are 10 and 8 years old, so these cannot be used as references. AGAIN, in other Wikipedia pages we can read, that FX India, Fox Crime India and Nat Geo Music were closed in years 2015, 2016 and 2017, Fox History and Ent. and Nat Geo Adventure rebranded to Fox Life India and Nat Geo People + in India there's a channel Fox. Again, Wikipedia cannot have articles with informations confuses with every other article, and cannot have articles with OUTDATED informations.

5. These are smaller changes:

- Extra references - reference about units of FNG, reference about FN Digital Consumer Group and reference about FX Networks and its units.

- Bonus Nat Geo Channel - Nat Geo People. Why it is not mentioned as part of NG Channels?

- And some other really small changes :)

Here's my vision: User talk:PLMad5002 —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

1. There may be spaces but most of your complaints are false. If you read the source instead of assuming it is Fox Inkubation that is what the program was called. This is a Portmanteau - the combination of two different words, ink and incubation. And spelling error isn't grammar error. References in brackets? What are you talking about. They are in the cite form. There is no problem with them. There are problems with your references as you are stealthing your sources - passing them off as if they are something that they are not. Here you are attacking me as a foreigner due to following the source and the whole paragraph is rife with spelling errors. Then you make nonsensical correction suggestions "making more brackets beetween (sic) longer sentences in Units section," What does this even mean?

2. FX Networks Canada - The source (https://www.fxnowcanada.ca/) doesn't in any way indicate any thing about ownership or ownership percentages. You have not connected any ownership of the FX Networks Canada channels to FX Networks/Fox Networks Group. Even the about page states that they are owned by Rogers Broadcasting Limited. You have been repeatedly given the reason via edit summary. So in effect you don't have a source for what you want to add. "Wikipedia cannot have articles with informations confuses with every other article." This makes no sense. But my best guest that you mean WP articles should reflect the same information. So, why are you confusing unsourced or poorly sourced article as having correct information? You (in this case) are the one cause this problem. I am trying to clean things up here which then can copied out to other articles. Instead you choose to impede correction.

3. You want. You just don't stick their website address as proof. (See the FX Canada issue). Self sourcing is not the preferred. It is bad enough that we are using - "Cable Network Programming". www.21cf.com. 21st Century Fox. Plus you are making the references look like the MAISVE source thus misleading (stealthing your sources - as mention above) and you removed the source for the rest of Italy's channels.

• • "Company: Fox International Channels Italy SARL". MAVISE. European Audiovisual Observatory. Retrieved 2 October 2017.
  • "Company: FOX NETWORKS GROUP ITALY SARL". Retrieved 1 September 2018.
  • "Company: FOX NETWORKS GROUP ITALY SARL". Retrieved 1 September 2018.

The first one is MAVISE which you strip out, but keep its information - thus leaving behind unsourced information. The other two are yours. They say they are the same, but use two separate urls, and don't really ID your source but obscures it. You want to add Fox World (MondoFox) which isn't even a TV channel, the point of the table - listing the channels available in a country. vivmais is a TV guide which is not considered a reliable source nor does that show that Mundo Fox Africa should be removed for MundoFox (Angola).

4. "AGAIN, in other Wikipedia pages we can read," Stop claiming them as the authority. Citing other WP articles for what should be here is not allowed as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source and with out reliable sources, you are asking me to violate Wikipedia:No original research. If they were sourced then we could easily make the changes you want. "Again, Wikipedia cannot have articles with informations confuses with every other article, and cannot have articles with OUTDATED informations." They should not be, but they can have outdate information, you need the sources to back them up not just yelling at me that the are "OUTDATED".

5. Extra references were looked at and they just duplicate existing sources. Well we have no new sources for the India thus the old source. Nat Geo People should be added back. Spshu (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Requested move 20 March 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: REVERTED (non-admin closure) Danski454 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

---

• Disney Channels Asia Pacific → Fox Networks Group Asia Pacific
• Disney Channels MENA → Fox Networks Group Middle East
• Disney Channels Europe → Fox Networks Group Benelux

–  Sure, those international Fox Networks Group companies will eventually fold into the existing equivalents at Disney. But as I checked the official websites of the FNG entries worldwide, as well as their Terms of Use and Privacy Policy documents, they are yet to change their name nor folded into the Disney equivalents. Therefore, I suggest

1. Revert all the unsourced changes.
2. Wait until company name changes are confirmed. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 18:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Revert. These units may not even exist, moving them to Disney Channels name are misleading as in no way supported by sources. 21st Century Fox was not changed to 21st Century Disney. Perhaps these units become Disney-Fox Network Group (Asia Pacific, MENA, Europe) or are moved into a Disney unit. Spshu (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Revert. Agree. C0re1980 (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Revert. Let's wait until the name changes are confirmed and list the FNG companies as owned by Disney for now. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Revert. Agree. "Society Person" Peppa Pig (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

Integration?

Many articles currently state that Fox Networks Group has been integrated into Disney Channels Worldwide. However, I can find no source to support this. The requested move above showed consensus that the moves should be reverted. I think we should also revert the claims of integration until it is confirmed. --Danski454 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, sources indicate what happen to the US channels, FX Networks and Nat Geo channels, which have been kept independent of Disney Channels WW US or Freeform, etc. within Walt Disney Television. I have correct Disney Channel Worldwide once or twice before. Disney DTC and International segment would have the international channels, but there has been no word on how they are being organized. Given that it was just formed that is understandable as they are trying just to get the units from Disney organized too and get the streaming services started. Spshu (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Split plan

With the spin off of Fox Corporation that took place on 19 March 2019, followed by the completion of Disney's Fox acquisition the next day, Fox Networks Group in the United States was effectively dissolved. But the international FNG companies are still in operation for the time being. So I'm going to split this article.

Note that this article was originally created as one about Fox International Channels, but the portions about FNG USA were later added after FIC was absorbed into FNG. I'll move this article to Fox Networks Group (international), and create Fox Networks Group as a new article about the dissolved FNG USA. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 17:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A reminder to justify article split:

1. Fox International Channels (FIC) was only integrated into Fox Networks Group (FNG) in 2016, and has been separately operated from Fox's U.S. domestic television businesses for a very long time.
2. Again, even after the completion of Disney-Fox deal, the international FNG subsidiaries (now placed under Disney DTCI) continue to operate during the transition period, separately from international Disney Channel operations. I don't know how these companies will be integrated into Disney after the unspecified period, but for now, that's how do they operate.

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 10:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Dropping Fox name

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/disney-dropping-fox-20th-century-studios-1203470349/

Update Variety is reporting that in 2020 Disney is dropping the Fox part in its brands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:151A:446F:F70E:F1A7 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That is for only its major film units, 20th Century Fox → 20th Century Studios and Fox Searchlight Pictures → Searchlight Pictures. The Variety article above specifies that the TV production units are not under this change. These are the Fox network international were there are no Fox Corporation units. Thus no hurry - name changes may come later if at all. Spshu (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)