Talk:National Geographic (American TV channel)

message: :This article has a lack of focus.  It says that it is about the United States version of the National Geographic Channel, but it then includes other versions of the National Geographic Channel, as well as including spin-off channels that haven't been launched in the United States. 151.198.24.170 14:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus?

message: :It would seem to make more sense to have a United States specific article at "National Geographic Channel (US)" rather than "National Geographic Channel".  If this is agreed upon, then I suggest that the United Kingdom version be placed at "National Geographic Channel" or to turn "National Geographic Channel" into a disambiguation page.  Further logic behind this supported move is that other versions of National Geographic Channel existed before the United States version of the channel. 151.198.24.170 14:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This channel is very US centric and deserves a separate article. Even the structure of Nat Geo itself is split into separate countries, offering different additional services as you said. --Smacca 17:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might have been very US centric but now the page looks awful.  Its poorly done.  It looks much better when each country has its own page (it was much cleaner when it was just the US version).  If your going to list all of those channel numbers, do so in a seperate page or make that sidebar smaller, as well as the logos.  The sidebar just doesnt look good being that big and leaves a big blank spot in the article.  The logos are also out of order and It appears that this isnt the only channel (I noticed Discovery Channel is the same way) whose wikipedia format has changed for the worse.Dvferret (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page is still titled as the US Nat Geo, so why do we still have worldwide channel listings? Dvferret (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Nat Geo UK launched before Nat Geo US, I suggest this article be moved to National Geographic Channel (US) and Nat Geo UK be moved to National Geographic Channel. Thanks  TheProf  |  Talk  13:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, maybe even better, make this article a universal article about Nat Geo, and give Nat Geo US its own article.  TheProf  |  Talk  13:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "National Geographic Channel (US)"?

message: :It would help to move to National Geographic Channel (US), there are many errors on this site as it is.  I know the details well and am happy to help update.
::Go right ahead and fix the errors. Dvferret (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix errors?

message: : I have put up the Cleanup Notice because of the conflicting focus of the article and in hopes that this page will eventually be fixed and brought back up to par. Dvferret (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up

message: I propose that National Geographic Channel HD should be moved into this article since its a direct simulcast of it.TomCat4680 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there were no objections I did it myself.TomCat4680 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: I guess there is an edit war over adding a Gun Owners of America(GOA) criticism section in the National Geographic Channel article.The criticism is about the airing of "Guns in America" which is part of "National Geographic Explorer" series(http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explorer/3825/Overview).
According to GOA in its statement(http://gunowners.org/a121708.htm), it feels the episode was biased and sided with the Brady Campaign.This incident was received mainly (in my Opinion) by pro-gun rights blogs and website, and there is no Reuters or AP article, however there is an Opposing Views page:(http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/news-national-geographic-gun-show-draws-heavy-fire-from-critics). One wikipedia editor cite that the criticism is an "irrelevant complaint that has no means to stick out above anything else. issue with production company, not channel" and another one thinks "insignifigant in terms of the channel as a whole". Do you think the criticism deserves to stay there or should it be shifted to the National Geographic Explorer article or should it not stay at all. here is the edit: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Geographic_Channel&diff=277833492&oldid=277320749)64.255.180.34 (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Geographic and Gun Owners of America 

message: The number of countries and languages must be outdated.  I have information (but no quotes) of 35 languages as of 2009, so the number of countries may have changed as well.
Calfaro (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Info 

message: There are a number of regular documentaries on the channel surrounding UFOs and paranormal like themes. It seems to me that these shows exist simpley to gain viewers as they have very little scientific relevance. The shows are often based on a premise which is quite obviously untrue, one such example was on the recent documentary on the Nazca lines. The running question throughout the show was whether these were made by aliens and at one point the question is asked "were humans once used as slaves by an alien race?". This dumbed down kind of attitude is recurrent in many of the documentaries, irrelevant questions whose answers are quite obviously "no". Would it be worth mentioning this kind of attitude and subject matter in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.3.74 (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant/misleading Subject Matter 

message: There is a bit of problem with the ownership % values. On the sidebar it says Fox Cable Networks owns 67% and Fox Entertainment Group owns 50%, but 67% + 50% = 117%. Tweisbach (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. Whovever added that didn't know simple math! But I'd recommend you'd remove the percentages, and leave only the owners. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my  efforts? 19:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox ownership math 

message: Why doesn't the infobox mention News Corp's minority partner in the NGC, the Society itself? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234)   C 22:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minority partner? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Geographic (magazine) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 00:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on National Geographic (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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/walt-disney-company-acquire-twenty-first-century-fox-inc-spinoff-certain-businesses-52-4-billion-stock-2/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110701201441/http://www.cesarsway.com/news/appearances/National-Geographic-Launches-Nat-Geo-Mundo to http://www.cesarsway.com/news/appearances/National-Geographic-Launches-Nat-Geo-Mundo
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Before there was a National Geographic TV channel, there was a National Geographic PBS show, like Nova or Nature. Where is that mentioned? Is there another article on it? I can’t find it. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it! The shows get an extremely short mention in the National Geographic Society article. There needs to be some kind of redirection for them, though, if not a separate article. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re the TV show 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Geographic (Africa). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Utopes (talk / cont) 21:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "National Geographic (Africa)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Geographic (Israeli TV channel). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Utopes (talk / cont) 21:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "National Geographic (Israeli TV channel)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Geographic (Turkey TV channel). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Utopes (talk / cont) 21:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "National Geographic (Turkey TV channel)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Geographic (Spain TV channel). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Utopes (talk / cont) 22:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "National Geographic (Spain TV channel)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Geographic (MENA). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Utopes (talk / cont) 22:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "National Geographic (MENA)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]