Talk:Viceland

VICELAND

As far as I can tell, it's always stylized VICELAND, so maybe this article should be moved from Viceland to VICELAND, which is currently a re-direct to H2 (TV network)#Viceland until I re-direct it to this article in about two minutes. Fnordware (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

MOS:TM says otherwise. We can add a "(stylized as VICELAND)" in the lead, but we otherwise follow normal capitalization rules and do not fall back on the trademark owner's preferred formatting. Plus, almost all secondary sources are calling it "Viceland", so we must follow that as well. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

article is way too promotional

There is way too much recycling of internal hype in the article. It reads like a collection of press releases issued by Vice about viceland. The article is about ten times as long as needs to be and it would be better if had a neutral point of view rather than sounding like it has been written by company staff for a company website. The introduction is too long. There is endless repetition in the article of business details such as ownership stakes and partnerships. There are excessive details in every section such as (for example) detailing the newspaper advertising strategy of the network. If all that detail needs to be there, it should at least be pushed down in the article.184.167.36.197 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

viewership information

The Wall Street Journal recently published viewership information for the channel for July. Its 18-49 viewership in prime time averages 45,000. The median viewer age is 40. The numbers are about half of H2 (which itself had bad ratings) and the median age is really high considering the target audience. The viewership has also actually gone down since launch. But the hype around vice in the media is so strong that I doubt any of this will even register. 184.21.186.73 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the network's awful viewership should be mentioned somewhere. Plenty of outlets have covered just how bad things are. Their original scripted series, like Nirvanna the Band the Show and What Would Diplo Do? are pulling absolutely horrid numbers. This isn't isolated to the US channel either. Almost all of the foreign affiliates have been reported to have borderline non-existent viewership. The only exception is Canada, and that's because there are 0 exhaustive public ratings reports and no one's called the channel out. - Damnedfan1234 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)