Talk:Paramount International Networks

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paramount International Networks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Television

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

logo image

I uploaded the logo but can't figure out how to make it smaller. If anybody can help to fix it please do. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chkurz (talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I have started on a massive rewrite and consolidation of Viacom International articles as most information is either out of date or duplicated 3 or 4 times! I will carry this on when I am able over the next few weeks. Please do not revert this change. Mark999 (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

Why was the page name changed? It should say ViacomCBS Networks International like the logo. SportsFan007 (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have anything to do with it, but why the the logo say "ViacomCBS Networks International"? --XSMan2016 (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be moved.Mark999 (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 January 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

No consensus to move. BD2412 T 00:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ViacomCBS International Media Networks → ViacomCBS Networks International – Correct name. SportsFan007 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Since ViacomCBS was born we know that Viacom International Media Networks has become ViacomCBS Networks International, but since then the title is wrong. This is incredible.--Carlitoscarlos (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed. According to the first sentence of the article ("ViacomCBS Networks International, incorporated as ViacomCBS International Media Networks, is the international division of ViacomCBS") both names are correct. No reason for or evidence in support of a move has been presented here. Dekimasuよ! 09:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: Official announcements (including recent shake-ups in the division), gave us the official names. Question - where did you see that it was "incorporated?" Can you provide the source Dekimasu? JWthaMajestic (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I simply quoted the article. Part of the point I was trying to make is that comments that say "correct" or "wrong" without pointing to evidence are not sufficient. In the case of your comment, you mention official announcements, but did not link to them, and we also have WP:OFFICIAL. Dekimasuよ! 15:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dekimasu. Evidence needs to be provided that the proposed name meets the WP:CRITERIA for page titling, in particular that it is the WP:COMMONNAME for this entity in reliable sources. No evidence has been provided so far. — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dekimasu and concurred in by Amakuru. It seems like this is a case of the nom, in absolutely entirely good faith, trying to drop seemingly extraneous wording from the division name in order to be more concise under the premise that this meets WP:COMMONNAME. The problem with that, though, is it lacks precision. Moreover, shortening the title, even if there is common issue is problematic in terms of search precision and recall as there may be more than one division of a similar name (International is problematic here; there are more than ViacomCBS/Viacom/CBS International divisions). Doug Mehus T·C 12:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose basically per the other opposers. Basically, there needs to be more evidence that this is the WP:COMMONNAME prior to the page being moved. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2020 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 20 April 2020

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 consensus to move. I would normally close as unopposed and move it, but since there is a recent discussion above that came to the opposite conclusion, I do not think that is appropriate. The move request has already been relisted twice. b uidhe 00:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ViacomCBS International Media Networks → ViacomCBS Networks International – The new company has been established for 4 months now and the name "ViacomCBS International Media Networks" not the official name of the division nor was it ever. A Google search for "ViacomCBS Networks International" returns 38,800 results ("ViacomCBS Networks International") whereas a Google search for "ViacomCBS International Media Networks" returns just 22 ("ViacomCBS International Media Networks"). The inconsistency between the article title name is also very confusing. Looking at Google Trends, "ViacomCBS Networks International" is more popular, although there doesn't seem to be enough data for Google to return a proper Google Trends page [1]. In fact, Google Trends shows that no one searches for "ViacomCBS International Media Networks", but the data seems incomplete. Changing the name of the article would also make it constant with the other ViacomCBS international divisions that all follow the format ViacomCBS Networks placename as well as the official name of the division that is used by ViacomCBS. – BrandonXLF (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. b uidhe 12:02, 27 April 2020 (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.

Moving the page

@Carlitoscarlos, Dekimasu, JWthaMajestic, Amakuru, and Steel1943: As recommended by Buidhe, I would like to know if you would agree with moving the page to ViacomCBS Networks International based on the rationale I provided in my previous RM attempt:

The new company has been established for 4 months now and the name "ViacomCBS International Media Networks" not the official name of the division nor was it ever. A Google search for "ViacomCBS Networks International" returns 38,800 results ("ViacomCBS Networks International") whereas a Google search for "ViacomCBS International Media Networks" returns just 22 ("ViacomCBS International Media Networks"). The inconsistency between the article title name is also very confusing. Looking at Google Trends, "ViacomCBS Networks International" is more popular, although there doesn't seem to be enough data for Google to return a proper Google Trends page [2]. In fact, Google Trends shows that no one searches for "ViacomCBS International Media Networks", but the data seems incomplete. Changing the name of the article would also make it constant with the other ViacomCBS international divisions that all follow the format ViacomCBS Networks placename as well as the official name of the division that is used by ViacomCBS.

– BrandonXLF (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that the current name is not correct and I am in favor of renaming the article as I was the previous time it was proposed. --Carlitoscarlos (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I support the move now. Looking around it's clear that the new name is now in use by everyone even if it's maybe not the legal name. The current title of this article is a strange hybrid anyway, because the original title was Viacom International Media Networks without the CBS, and it was moved without discussion on November. — Amakuru (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Paramount Network (Blue) Logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New name

A Google search on "Paramount Networks International" gives nothing except Wikipedia, same for Paramount Networks EMEAA, Paramount Networks Americas and others, are we really sure these are their correct new names?

Assuming that because ViacomCBS was rebranded as Paramount Global, all their subsidiaries keep all their same name with just ViacomCBS changing to Paramount is original research.

Some IPs and new editors mass replaced "ViacomCBS" by "Paramount" in a bunch of articles without giving any reliable source, they didn’t account to the fact that there’s already a Paramount Network (without the S), to avoid confusion Paramount Global maybe picked another name, we should wait for reliable sources. Thibaut (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the parent RM: the divisions pages should not be moved until there is some clarity as to their current names. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.

Unfortunately all the pages and templates have already been moved, no source provided or if a source was provided, it didn’t mention the new name (see for example GMc (talk · contribs)). Thibaut (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I was right.

I made a summary on Talk:Paramount Global. --Thibaut (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only moved associated Templates as the original articles had already been moved, which I would've thought would have consensus before being moved. I apologise if this was wrong. (GMc) 01:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 February 2022

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: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ViacomCBS Networks International → Paramount International Networks – The article ViacomCBS Networks International should renamed to Paramount International Networks, according to the info at the Paramount's leadership webpage, especially info about Raffaele Annecchino here. Ridwan97 (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The discovery is identical to the proposal I made for Paramount Media Networks and should probably be sent along together--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rreagan007 (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support C0re1980 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2022 (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.