Talk:Liberty Global/Archives/2014

Cleanup needed

For Liberty Global and UPC Broadband, article title and content don't match, and parts of their content are identical . Neither do the interwiki links (de:Liberty Global Europe, de:Liberty Global Europe). Liberty Global, Liberty Global Europe (and their previous names that are still in use) are admittedly somewhat confusing, but these articles are not helping. Rl (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

RI, is this something you would feel comfortable with fixing? It does not appear to have been addressed since you placed the tag. I don't know enough about the contradiction in this case to even begin knowing where to start fixing it. If you could leave a hint or suggestion as to what specifically is the contradiction, I'd be happy to look at it again or you could simply fix the error and then remove the tag. Either way is cool. Thanks so much. Kjnelan (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My take on this and this is just my opinion after some research and reading of all articles involved, is that Liberty Global and UPC Broadband are in fact one and the same, though operating under two different names for their different departments; one being cable television service and the other being broadband internet services. Could we get further insight from someone else regarding this issue? Thanks so much. Kjnelan (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nevermind. I think I found the contradiction and fixed it. Tag removed. If you still feel this article is in contradiction, feel free to add a fresh tag and discuss it on this page. Thanks. Kjnelan (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Links?

The references contain just a bunch of links which looks like an advertisement for all the local UPC websites. I think at least some of these should be removed.86.89.227.86 (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This company is the largest cable operator outside the US. It has a right to be featured in WP. The facts are real, just as the links are an (allowed) representation of that. The article can be expanded freely. But there is no need to cut something out just because someone has a problem with commercial businesses. --Stijn Calle (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Companies don't have a "right" to be featured in wikipedia, and wikipedia is not for comercial promotion. Please don't try to edit the articles in a way that maximizes its comercial impact. They are supposed to be written in a way that increases the encyclopedic information.

Go make a "corporate history" section that details how the company grew up to become what it is today, in the style of Microsoft#History. Hummmm, after reading a bit, I'd rather have you go to Liberty_Media#History and add the details of the fusion to UGC, since it doesn't appear anywhere. This article doesn't even say in what year the fusion actually happened, why they fused, and what was apported by each company to form the new one.... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: I came here after reading Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Noticed_creation_of_many_advertising_pages_by_a_specific_group_of_users, and my comments are directed at those users (you know who you are), rather than directed at the editor above. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate phrasing implied Liberty Global was already the UK's biggest cable provider

I've modified the line which stated:
"On February 5, 2013 it was announced that Liberty Global was to buy Virgin Media, which would make it the largest broadband company in the world, and retaining its position as the UK's largest cable operator."

This is not accurate. It clearly implies Liberty Global was *already* the UK's largest cable services operator, but Virgin Media was/is pretty much the *only* noticeable cable operator, with over 90% of existing cable subscriptions.
The *new* company formed by the merger would clearly retain Virgin Media's position, but Liberty Global... erm, I'll be bold and say that prior to said merger, they had no business presence in the UK.
90.244.130.201 (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

BIGGEST cable provider

what are the metrics here. just a quick research on belgium's cable operators showed me this list: Telenet (Belgium) VOO (Belgium) Numericable (Belgium) Wolu-Télé AIESH Belgacom

Also: "There are several cable providers in Belgium. Each have their own covered area within Belgium. For Flanders, that's Telenet; for Wallonia, that's VOO and for Brussels, that's Numericable." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cable_Internet_providers#Belgium

suggests that Telenet is only operating in Flanders. I wonder if it can really be in such a clear pole position overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:EE55:3180:C889:E290:BD2:3354 (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)