Talk:Viacom (1952–2005)

Move from Viacom (1986)

I don't think it was wise to move the Viacom (1986) article I created to one that indicates the year 1971. The prior Viacom was not founded in 1971: it was founded in 1986. There was some sort of previous instance of the company that existed from 1971-1986, but I haven't yet researched the details of it or why it was refounded. Nonetheless, I expect that there may be a separate article in the future covering the 1971 instance. That's why I created it as "Viacom (1986)", and I used only the founding year in the title to follow the convention of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1886) and Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1998), the latter company of which is still in existence, and both of which are highly intertwined with the CBS-Viacom transactions.Jkatzen 22:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with this. I shall research to fix it. --Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 21:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Duet?

The Phil Collins song "Seperate Lives" is about divorce, right? Well, who would represent each company in that duet? You'd have to have a man and a woman. You might call it corny, but I find it pretty funny. 71.111.209.99 23:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Viacom Cable

We had cable service called viacom cable, where is the information about them as a cable company? User:crd721—Preceding undated comment added at 05:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You must be talking about Viacom Cablevision. I don't know much about it, however.-TheVofSteel— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.79.71 (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Viacom Cable, was headquartered in Pleasanton, CA, and grew to become a One million subscriber MSO. The division was sold to Tele-Communications International (TCI)in 1996. Celliot2 (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I did some research on this myself from the Seattle Times archives. I updated the Viacom wiki page with a small amount of info. -detyc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.106.21.22 (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Why Not Any Logo Reference?

WGBH has a section for the Flash of Doom, why no V of Doom here? It's even more widely-known. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.208.154.222 (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Viacom logos

Hey, shouldn't we add a section for Viacom's closing logos from 1971 until 2004. This may be more noteworthy than you think. Sean90 23:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. The Green Lantern 02:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

In a late 2007 interview on C-SPAN's "The Communicators," Ralph Baruch (first chairman of Viacom) remarks that he hated the company name, that it was chosen for graphical reasons (another executive was very heavily graphics-oriented and envisioned the logo with the A and V being inverses), and that it was originally pronounced VEEacom (as in Venus).

Sumner Redstone, when he purchased Viacom, changed the pronunciation to the much more well known V[eye]acom.

At time of writing, a Podcast of the episode in question can be downloaded from http://download.rbn.com/cspan/cspan/download/com_feed.xml

(Maybe we are all used to the modern pronunciation, but I do not change articles unless I am quite certain that my information is correct.) Shultzc (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I recognize now that the confusion arose from not dividing the article into pre-Redstone and post-Redstone eras; I have updated my pronunciation to clarify this to a degree. Shultzc (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Viacom logo.png

Image:Viacom logo.png 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging Viacom Enterprises into this page

I placed the merge tags above this page and the Viacom Enterprises article, as I feel these two pages are about the exact same subject -- only "Viacom Enterprises" seems to be less-detailed. The Green Lantern (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye, see also

The two items in See also are already linked in the article.

Manual of Style suggests that they therefore do not also go in the See also section.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime 20:13, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Hey, can you point out where in the Manual of Style it says you can't do both? A perfunctory glance of the MOS isn't revealing it. Jkatzen (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

VIACOM vs YouTube

Do you guys believe Viacom is guilty for claiming false copyright over videos on YouTube???--210.24.206.171 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Recreated SVG logo

File:Viacom-old.svg (Oops, I meant to name it Viacom-old.svg, but I would like to see if this is an acceptable alternative before I actually get it renamed.)

Whether or not the license is accurate is unclear, but I know it's one or the other. mechamind90 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge with the new Viacom

I was planning to merge this article with Viacom, although most parts of the old Viacom looks similar to the new one. Superastig (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I waas thinking it's this you are requesting to merge to. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom). (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, it shouldn't be merged. The old Viacom split into the new Viacom and the new CBS Corporation, not had the new CBS corporation spin off from Viacom. In fact, I'm surprised the old CBS Corporation and the new CBS Corporation are merged. This is like merging the old Viacom and the new one. --Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 17:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

They are not merged, Westinghouse Electric (1886) is it's own article. --Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 17:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The end of the partnership and the death of the Viacom empire

Whether or not it is a common opinion that the US was more free after Viacom "killing" the CBS Corporation and recycling the name for their spin-off (I am splitting it into two articles) made the US more "free" because the company had too much power over everything after the 1971 split, that doe not stop it from being an opinion, and the section should not be named that. It should be changed to something like "2005 split." Not to mention that it was a bit too wordy for a headline. I shall make this edit now. --Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 17:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 17:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject National Basketball Association

The old Viacom was a division split from the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Yet this page appears to be associated with WikiProject Nationalt if anybody has any problem with that they v Basketball Association (the coverage of the NBA). I'm removing the page from the category currently, but if anybody has any problem with that then they can simply change it back. --Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 21:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning "old" Viacom as a TV syndication distributor...

I had removed the "Television syndication distributor" category from the article for "old" Viacom because after acquiring media properties, "old" Viacom ceased to be a TV syndication distributor, but mostly because "old" Viacom no longer exists as of December 31st, 2005; its assets having been split between "new" Viacom & CBS Corporation. However, .@Creativity-II responded by saying:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Viacom (original),

My intent was NEVER disruptive editing, but to remove a template from an article that didn't need it. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

All American Television. Associated Artists Productions. CBS Paramount Domestic Television. Claster Television. Coca-Cola Telecommunications. Colex Enterprises. Columbia TriStar Television. Lexington Broadcast Services Company. Lorimar-Telepictures. New World Television. Pearson Television. Turner Program Services. Worldvision Enterprises. Ziv Television Programs. All of those syndicators (as well as syndicators that don't have articles on Wikipedia) no longer exist either, so are you suggesting to remove the Television syndication distributors category from those articles as well, according to your logic? Creativity-II (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, yes, my logic WOULD suggest to remove the television syndication distributors category from those pages, if those pages are for TV distributors that no longer exist, as that is EXACTLY what I've been saying this entire time.

Also, on my talk page, you stated:

Despite your claims otherwise, the now-defunct original Viacom is still considered a TV syndication distributor. Removing the category to make that claim otherwise is disruptive (and there are other now-defunct syndication companies with articles here that still have that category in their article pages) and goes against consensus here, so don't remove that category again.

I would really appreciate it if you could direct me to said consensus that says what I'm doing is wrong. If you can indeed show me there is consensus backing up what you are saying, then I will gladly apologize for doing what I did & will cease my actions from here on out on the article for "original" Viacom. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, the editors who created and edited those articles probably wouldn't agree and neither do I. All you did was make my case for me, in that the category should remain where it is, not only on the original Viacom, but on all the other named distributors with articles here. Creativity-II (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how I "made your case for you" by simply stating logic. But, regardless, seeing as how our disagreement/argument seems to have come to a standstill (neither of us is willing to back down from our stance), I've decided to list our dispute in WP:3O in the hopes that some resolution can be found. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's simple. Viacom began as a TV syndication company formerly known as CBS Films. It eventually through acquisitions became a conglomerate but still was a TV syndication company. That changed in 1999 with the acquisition of CBS. But for the sake of history, the original incarnation of Viacom is for all intents and purposes a TV syndication company.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelbeard1 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

Maybe I don't understand the question. However, if the question is whether "old" Viacom should have the category of being a TV syndication distributor, when that is in fact what they did when they existed, then of course the category is correct. I am removing the third opinion request as answered with a yes. If there is another question, please restate the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

.@Robert McClenon, the question I was stating is: should the article for "old" Viacom contain the TV syndication distributor category, even though 1) "old" Viacom no longer exists & 2) once "old" Viacom started acquiring media properties, it ceased being a TV syndication distributor & became a media conglomerate? 76.235.248.47 (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. This article is a historical article, and it should have the historical category. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

So, you're agreeing with Creativity that the article for "old" Viacom should contain the "Television syndication distributor" category? 76.235.248.47 (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine.....I'll leave the article alone, even though articles for defunct companies shouldn't have categories that belong only to active companies. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Viacom text rendering

I removed the passage " and stylized as VIΛCOM" because that is not true. Check out these Viacom logos over the years. [1] Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 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.

Moved. See general agreement below to rename both articles. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  09:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

---

• Viacom (original) → Viacom (1952–2006)
• Viacom → Viacom (2005–present)

– This is a similar situation to News Corporation, where the original company and the spin-off have the same name and neither is the clear primary topic. It would be helpful to readers if the Viacom articles were disambiguated by year of existence, and the "Viacom" namespace became a disambiguation page. WikiRedactor (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. If there is consensus regarding absence of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the two enhanced qualifiers would identify the subjects of the two separate articles in a form that is helpful to users. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1st, oppose 2nd. "Viacom (1952–2006)" is a better title, but I see no need to move the current company known as "Viacom". A hatnote at the top of the page is all the disambiguation that is needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support – "Original" is not descriptive enough. In fact, if the rumored merger is announced by the end of the month from what I am hearing, I may actually support a merge. Obviously the content could be excessive, so if we merge it we would have to figure out a way to do so properly. JE98 (talk) 22:27, 3 August 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.

Post move

FYI... per Wikipedia:TWODABS, and specifically Wikipedia:NOPRIMARY, the Viacom page has been converted to a disambiguation page. All article, category and file backlinks to the page have been disambiguated. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  18:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguator year

I have to question the choice of 1952 as the first year in the disambiguator. Yes, that is the year the division that became the original Viacom was started, but it wasn't a separate company at the time, and indeed I am not even sure that it was incorporated as a subsidiary at first instead of just a division within CBS. Since this article is really about a particular corporate entity, i would suggest that the disambiguator should use the year it became a separate entity, 1971, as the date, not an obscure corporately internal date. Not formally proposing a move because it's just been moved, but did want to get some feedback on the idea. oknazevad (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Viacom (1952–2006) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Viacom's logo from 1976-1990.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Request retitling article to Viacom (1952–2005)?

There was substantial evidence that the original Viacom was reorganized in 2005, but the header's endpiece reads 2006. —75.99.18.219 (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"V of Steel" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect V of Steel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 26 § V of Steel until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"V of Doom" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect V of Doom has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 26 § V of Doom until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)