DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:MS NOW

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

From MSNBC to MS Now

[edit]

I saw that article from CNN who mention then MSNBC is now known as MS Now since they split from NBC. https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/18/media/msnbc-msnow-nbc-news-versant-split Sd-100 (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The split from NBC has not been finalized, and MSNBC remains the same until then. BlueboyLINY (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The change is coming on November 15th, until then no changes will be made. ~2025-31790-95 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC is an Opinion channel not a News channel.

[edit]

"MSNBC is an American cable news channel owned by the NBCUniversal News Group division of NBCUniversal"

MSNBC is 100% a political opinion channel, no one turns in to MSNBC for news. They don't even report news. This article is flawed by the very notion MSNBC reports news. I can get DNC talking points and whatever the New York times is opining about, but I wouldn't call that news. --64.16.13.2 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So then, by your own logic, Fox News Channel isn't a "news" channel either, but 100% a political opinion channel for the RNC. Not to mention, it's been logged how many times Fox "News" has lied in its on-air broadcasts.
In fact, outlets like One America News Network, Newsmax TV, Real America's Voice, & almost every other right-leaning broadcast outlet could be argued to be not "news" channels, but 100% political opinion channels for either the RNC, Trump's MAGA movement, or another rightist political movement.
But, I will agree with you on one point: nowadays, most people don't pay attention to specialty news broadcast channels when it comes to news & information. They can get that from either their local TV station, or from online sources. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Press BRD

[edit]

Discussion at Talk:CNN#Template:Press_BRD, but the same revert happened on this talkpage, so if you have an opinon, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K20AC-D Alexandria, MN

[edit]

Should K20AC-D in Alexandria, MN be removed from the article? I see that an editor redirected the page to Alexandria, Minnesota#Television, which appears to have not been updated in awhile. And the article for WCCO-TV states that K20AC-D is a translator for that station. Rabbitears.info shows Bloomberg, C-SPAN, and Lakes Area Local Access, with no mention of MSNBC. I will wait for some feedback before removing. Thanks - BlueboyLINY (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2025

[edit]

The msnow logo has changed. Edu183 (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotJamestack (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebrand discussion

[edit]

Just a quick question for everyone here. I was wondering should MS NOW or MSNBC have same articles. With this rebrand, there is a lot to discuss. Seperate or same articles? Should we change the name of the article to MS NOW? I think today is a great time to discuss what should be done with these articles around titles, sections, now is the perfect time to do so. I still think there should be a section on possible history. I still think there needs to be information somewhere about history at 30 Rockefeller Plaza. It has moved out: [1]. Anyways, this is the perfect time to discuss what should be done. Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if msnbc rebranded to ms now, then yes we should change that article name to ms now ~2025-33840-29 (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~2025-33840-29 There are still other policies like WP:COMMONNAME. Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying it should or should not change, but there is more nuance to just that. Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should change the article name now to MS NOW, the channel already rebranded a few hours ago. Samueldester1234 (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a move discussion, which is not quite as simple as it may seem. See WP:MOVE. Since it's not as easy as just moving it to a new title and changing all of the mentions of MSNBC to MS NOW, there ought to be a discussion of what needs to be done. In no case should a cut-and-paste move be undertaken. Acroterion (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just commenting that move warring, especially on a high-traffic page like this one, makes the page very unstable and confusing. Please do not move this page until a consensus has been reached. Z E T A3 18:17, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've admin-only move-protected the page for three days to allow a consensus to be formed - there is no prejudice against a consensus to move, but one is required. Acroterion (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion I would say that is a very good decision. Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the same company. It just got spun off from NBC Universal, has a new name, and lost the rights to the "NBC" part of its old name. The old company did not get dissolved and a new company did not get formed. The article should have been moved as soon as the rebrand completed, so the article needs to be moved ASAP. Jesse Viviano (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also think the opening should also include something like formerly known as MSNBC or formerly MSNBC. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since it looks like there is a consensus forming and that a move war is unlikely to break out again, I've removed move protection. It was not my intention to imply that a formal move request was needed, only that the move war stop and that editors use this talkpage to express their views, rather than summarily moving the article back and forth, or worse yet, making cut-and-paste moves.. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now that the article has been moved, don't forget there is more to discuss that I have above besides article name. Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 November 2025

[edit]
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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Since I inadvertently induced this formal discussion when I protected the page during a cut-and-paste and move war, I will close this as a WP:SNOW discussion to move the article to the new title. It was not my intention to provoke a formal discussion, only to ensure that the move war should stop and that enough discussion should take place to validate the change. Acroterion (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC) Acroterion (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC → MS NOW – This is now the official name of the network. ThirdEye96 (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per all the reasons stated above. Personally, I strongly disagree that this even merited a request to move the page in the first place and only needed a simple round-robin page swap. Sometimes—and especially with compelling and copious evidence in hand—you just need to be bold. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 03:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could've been possible but a move war broke out almost immediately... Z E T A3 04:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely shameful and makes this platform look terribly bad as a result, like we are paralyzed by needless bureaucracy. This discussion needs to end immediately and the page move need to take place post-haste. We aren't getting consensus on a name change that's already happened and is permanent, we're getting a 222–1 rout. And who does that benefit? Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 13:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support, the name of the network has been officially changed, yet why? It makes zero sense. Still, Wikipedia should keep up with the times and change the article name ASAP! Eric Carpenter (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. per everything everyone's already said. IsCat (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Not sure why this even needs to be debated. The name change clearly took effect today, both on-air and online. --GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Usually, when a company or TV network changes brandings, the article for it follows suit once the new branding is in effect. And, as for those who oppose the move, the re-branding has already happened, so their stance is irrelevant.
ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. The rebrand already happened, and I think discussing this further is unnecessary and needs to end as soon as possible.
Samueldester1234 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Having seen this coming months ago, I made a thread about this above, but it seems no one read it. In any case, from the looks of it, most of these !votes flat-out ignore policies such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES, incorrectly asserting that just because a company has "officially" rebranded means the article should immediately and "uncontroversially" be moved without further examination. This is false. I am seriously considering an MR in spite of the fact that this was a SNOW close — a litany of weak arguments that run counter to policy does not make a strong argument, so per WP:NHC they should have been given less weight. I regret not seeing this RM earlier, though it was closed less than 24 hours in, so I (and possibly others with a better grasp of policy) didn't have much of a chance to weigh in. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: Pursuant to step one of WP:IMR, I am asking that you revert your closure of this RM. Although !votes were, indeed, overwhelmingly in support of the proposal, I have reviewed each of them and was astonished to find that none except for the first one even attempt to make an argument based on policies and guidelines. The rest either flatly contradict policy and precedent (particularly WP:COMMONNAME and its supplement WP:OFFICIALNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, and WP:CRYSTAL) or simply say "per WP:EVERYONEELSE", which are not valid arguments. As an administrator, I am sure you are aware that consensus is not determined by the number of raw votes but by the strength of the arguments presented, and irrelevant arguments not based in policy should merely be discarded per WP:NHC. WP:RELIST explicitly states that discussions that lack arguments based on policy should not be closed, while WP:RMCIDC states: Any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. This was a premature close (again, less than 24 hours!) for a premature move (before the dust has even settled on the name change). Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@InfiniteNexus: And, as an administrator, I am sure you are aware that, according to Wikipedia policy, if you disagree with the outcome of a move discussion, the correct action is not to request a re-opening of a closed discussion, but rather to request a review of it by an uninvolved third-party. The rules were followed here when a move discussion was opened by Acroterion. And, as even some of the very guidelines you cited state, it is up to the closing editor/administrator to decide if a community consensus has been reached through a discussion. So, while I will state that, in my opinion, Acroterion probably should have made a request to an uninvolved third-party to review the discussion at hand & determine if a community consensus had been reached (even at this early a point in time), I believe you are also in the wrong here by directly approaching Acroterion & requesting a re-opening of a closed discussion. So, I am asking that you rectify your involvement here & correct your action by following through what you stated you were considering above & requesting a review of the move discussion by an uninvolved third party. What you need to realize is that enforcement of Wikipedia guidelines is *not* subject to solely one person's interpretation of those guidelines, but again, a community consensus of what the guidelines imply. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ClarkKentWannabe, first, InfiniteNexus is not an admin. They were noting in their comment that Acroterion is. Second, IN is right that the first step of a move review is not third-party review, but a request to the closer to reconsider. IN's minor error here was placing this appeal at this talk page as opposed to the closer's user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I was unaware that IN isn't an administrator. I suppose I assumed based off the comment IN made towards Acroterion that IN was. Also, after doing some "digging", you are indeed correct that the correct response in disputing a discussion's outcome is indeed to engage in good-faith discussion with the parties involved, and, if possible, suggest a compromise that everyone can agree with. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are generally held to a higher standard than other editors, as they are expected to have a strong grasp of policy in order to be able to exercise good judgement, which is why I was surprised to see that it was an administrator who closed this discussion in haste based on a handful of ill-informed !votes that literally said "move because they 'officially' changed the name", which is not consistent with policy at all. Nonetheless, I will of course assume good faith. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few things:
  • WP:MR is the appropriate venue for a contested move closure.
  • MR has a number of requirements, starting with a direct request to the closer. I will consider that part of the process satisfied.
  • I did not open the discussion - it was initiated by ThirdEye96. I may have inadvertently provoked the formal move discussion, but was uninvolved in it.
  • My administrative involvement was briefly move-protecting to stop a ping-pong move series, including cut-and-paste moves, which I lifted when it became apparent that the matter could be handled by regular move discussion, which I neither started nor participated in
  • @ClarkKentWannabe: InfiniteNexus isn't an administrator
  • I considered leaving the process to run for something approaching the full length of the usual discussion, but saw little point. That may have precluded InfiniteNexus from bring up a COMMONNAME objection, but I don't see that as clear-cut as IN might for a straightforward rebranding, in which the name change necessarily precedes common usage for at least a brief time. I would say time would be the primary issue at any potential MR.
  • I brought the rename up at AN, in the context of the technical issue concerning the RM banner, and asked for help with tidying the article categories and links. I noted that some things, like the MSNBC category, should not be renamed, or should be carefully reformatted to reflect the break in branding, rather than summarily renamed. That brought no comment.
  • I am happy to initiate a discussion if that is desired; it would be focused on the time available for comment, and whether SNOW was the correct decision in closing, precluding some substantive policy-based objection not covered in the other comments. Note that an objection based on summarily dismissing the bulk of the comments in favor of one view concerning COMMONNAME may not be the decisive matter that IN believes it to be. Acroterion (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again...
My apologies; I was unaware that InfiniteNexus isn't an administrator. I suppose I assumed based off the comment they made towards you that they were. And, I also apologize for wrongly assuming you were involved in launching the name change discussion. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion: Thank you for your response. To clarify, will you or will you not revert your move and reopen this RM to allow it to run its full course and for the relevant policies and guidelines to be assessed? If so, we can continue our discussion regarding COMMONNAME in the RM; if not, I will proceed with the MR. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've self-initiated an MR. You are welcome to participate. I've suggested that the discussion be reopened so that you can present your case, along with any others who may wish to participate, but I do not see a case for moving it back to MSNBC right away without a consensus for that, whether or not you believe that all 20 supporters of the move should be ignored. That would be controversial. Keep in mind that the MR discussion must focus on process and consensus, and is not a venue for discussion that would be part of the RM discussion (confusing, isn't it?) if it is reopened. I see no harm in reopening the discussion here, but would value the views of outside observers first. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up after move

[edit]

Some help in chasing all of the categories and links through would be helpful - there are a lot of them, and it will require some judgment in updating so that no anachronisms are created. For instance, I have not moved the category for MSNBC, since a great deal of the contents pertain only to MSNBC and not MS NOW. The category tree will have to be restructured with care. Acroterion (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2025

[edit]

Adding the template

on the top of this article because the article may be needed to WP:COPYEDIT for consistent spelling, grammar, style, tone, and cohesion. Thanks. ~2025-34009-90 (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done jolielover♥talk 15:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No date for transition to ms.now

[edit]

In the Online section: "With the rebranding of the channel as MS NOW, the website was moved to ms.now." There should be a date in there to say when the rebranding happened. ~2025-37402-86 (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sound by Ari on The Beat, and other broadcasts

[edit]

I am a daily watcher of The Beat w/Ari Melber. I think his microphone is too close to his mouth because his voice sounds like it is going through a screen. It sounds like vibrating and unclear. Please investigate. Thanks ~2025-41721-39 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia. We do not investigate. Send comment to MSNOW. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]