Talk:Bravo (American TV network)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

It would be nice

It would be nice if a more verbose statement was provided along with an edit reversion. In this case, an elaboration on where links to categories should Who is the announcer for the station's commercials?

Logos

Does anyone have the channel's original (1980-1990s) and previous (1990s-2005) logos? 67.41.213.180 05:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab with Bravo (UK TV channel)

I'll cross-post this there, but this verges on just plain silly that dabs like Bravo (TV), Bravo (TV channel), Bravo (TV network), and Bravo (channel) somewhat arbitrarily redirect to one or the other (it's actually 2-2 with those! the first and last redirect to Bravo (UK TV channel), and the middle two redirect to Bravo (US TV channel).

Wouldn't this all be simpler if they redirected to a dab specifically on this issue (probably Bravo (TV) would be best for that purpose)? Or is the line at the top of each article meant to alleviate that? I know we've already got Bravo as a dab, but surely it can't hurt to be more specific. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and made the new DAB. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Target audience

I removed possible copy-vio and definite plagiarism from the target audience section. I added some cited information in its place. I think we should try to communicate Bravo's heavy marketing to the LGBT community. It really is a large part of what defines the network right now. It's telling that "gaytvblog.com" has an entire section for Bravo, but obviously a blog isn't a reliable source. If anyone here subscribes to some LGBT magazine that would make a reliable source, it might be good to add some more information in. Gigs (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

I request to move this page, because it needs Wikipedia:NCA for moving this page. Per request: Bravo (US TV channel) to Bravo (U.S. TV channel) -- 13:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo (US TV network) → Bravo (U.S. TV network) — This article needs abbreviated with dots using Wikipedia:NCA in this page. — 121.96.111.196 (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose move to that name, see below. TJ Spyke 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The page should be moved to Bravo (United States), in line with similar articles like Sci Fi Channel (United States) and Cartoon Network (United States). TJ Spyke 20:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this case is somewhat different because SciFi has the word Channel and Cartoon has the word Network, indicating already in the names that they are television channels. The word Bravo by itself is rather ambiguous. •••Life of Riley (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about FX (UK) and FX (Italy)? Although oddly the US one is just at FX (TV channel). TJ Spyke 05:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

update of page: some present tenses now belong in past?

hello,

hasn't "queer eye" finished? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Eye_for_the_Straight_Guy states (in its 3rd paragraph at the time i write this) "Queer Eye ended production in June 2006 and the final 10 episodes aired in October 2007. The series ended October 30.[4]"

if queer eye is truly finished, i think past tense is needed for various mentions especially in "promotion" section - "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, which Bravo now produces in-house, was once an example of the off-network shows aired by Bravo, such as The West Wing."

regards.66.108.52.239 (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Queer Eye is no longer on. That last sentence is a run-on and is confusing. Queer Eye premiered on Bravo and was always on Bravo. West Wing is an NBC show that West Wing ran later on (and West Wing is no longer showing on Bravo). (Maybe Queer Eye is showing on another channel and Bravo promotes it and that's what the writer meant?)

I'm not sure why this "promotion" section is even in the article. Doesn't every channel promote it's own programming? Yelocab (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New section discussion

I added a new section for present and past contests and promotions of note. It was promptly removed as advertising. My intention was not to advertise but to keep-track and commemorate some of the contests and promotions that Bravo has run.24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be keeping track or commemorating anything here. That sort of promotional effort is for the Bravo website, not an encyclopedia. Promotional efforts should only be mentioned here if they're notable enough to be covered in reliable secondary sources, that is to say the promotion becomes notable in some way outside of the network itself. Dayewalker (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am providing a link to Howard Stern "lesbian Dial-a-Date" reference listed under "programming". The new section here was labeled Promotions and contest so should I move it to programming? shttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_100_and_Howard_101#Howard_Stern_100 That was a secondary source. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promotions and Contests

Current:Bravo SuperFan https://twitter.com/BravoSuperFan. Viewers are encouraged to become the Bravo Super-fan and win prizes and privileges including the ability to "tweet" using the Bravo-a-holic account.http://tv.broadwayworld.com/article/Bravo-Kicks-Off-First-Ever-Fan-Reward-Program-20130207 24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second link is a secondary source24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Stern page is actually not a promotion, it's under the programming listing. Dayewalker (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said. It is a contest, (lesbian dial-a-date) So should I post the new section under "programming"?24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a show, which is why it's under the Programming section on the Stern page. Dayewalker (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does appear to be a show but it is a contest24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC) What is this?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillsbury_Bake-Off A show? a contest? Promotion? It has it's own page. As previously stated the stub-making thingy appears to be backed-up at the moment and anyways there was not enough material in the new section to warrant a stub.24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC) What do you call this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_Bowl 24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC) And this---------------------->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIP_%28AM%29 24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay first, please read WP:LINK and see the best way to post links to other wikipedia pages. Also, other editors have asked you before to learn how to sign your posts correctly. Please read those links, it's hard to follow you sometimes because of the multiple signatures and links. The Pillsbury Bake-Off is a very famous, very notable contest that has its own Wikipedia article. It's not a one-off contest run by a radio station. As for the rest of the things you can find, you've been pointed to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before. Just because a non-notable contest might show up on another page doesn't mean they belong on this page. If you think there's a notable contest that Bravo is having, find some reliable secondary sources that show that. Dayewalker (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yeah sorry but no can do on the sign-in.I already posted a secondary source for that and I already posted that. As far as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I have provided several other examples not as an argument that they already exist but to try and see where the deleted section should be placed AND to provide examples of similar or otherwise ways that contests have been listed.To clarify, it is obvious that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I just wanted to see how and where it is handled and again, at this point there wasn't enough info. on the section to really put it anywhere else, except maybe a stub, IF enough info. can be found-24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bravo (U.S. TV network). 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/20080502185300/http://www.cablemediasales.com:80/pages/nets/?cp=nets&sp=info&net=brav to http://www.cablemediasales.com/pages/nets/?cp=nets&sp=info&net=brav

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bravo (U.S. TV channel). 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 September 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo (American TV channel) → Bravo (TV channel) – Since the UK channel dissolved eight years ago, the Canadian version rebranded to CTV Drama Channel today, and the New Zealand version does not exactly have a long article, now is an appropriate time to remove "U.S.", now "American", from the article title. JE98 (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's certainly time to do so, no point to keeping this long name when a shorter name exists. Nate • (chatter) 19:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it gets less than 3 quarters of the views [[1]] and the consensus for WP:PDABS is that the threshold is higher for them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: While 69% is a bit less than three quarters, I do not see why that is a reason to oppose, because despite WP:PDABS, like I said, Bravo UK is defunct and Bravo Canada is now CTV Drama Channel. In fact, I am actually starting to think about merging the New Zealand version into this article. JE98 (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see the NZ version is named after the American one but it appears to be distinct enough not to be a sub topic of it so I still think it should stay as is but I'm not entirely sure about the merge. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose notability in books for the older channels remains. This is Wikipedia not The 2019 Almanac. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for those supporting this move: 1) What do you see as the main benefits of this move? Helping readers who search for "Bravo (TV channel)"? Making it easier for editors to wikilink to this article? Or something else? 2) If this move were done, do you think it would necessitate adding a hatnote to this article (similar to the one on Thriller (album))? Colin M (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We're not concerned only with the current names of things; notable former brand names are still relevant to the disambiguation equation. For example, even though the Canadian channel was rebranded last week, that doesn't mean everybody's who's interested in it is going to search for it under its new name right away: some people actually don't know about the rebranding at all yet, and even those who do are still going to think of it as "Bravo" for a while, and will have to consciously remind ourselves that it's changed until our middle-aged brains have built up the habit of instinctively thinking "CTV Drama Channel" right away. Maybe in a year or two, it might be worth revisiting this once popular awareness has stabilized, but not just one week after the main colliding topic rebranded. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.