Talk:Sirius XM

message: This section seems extremely unfair and one sided. It makes the argument against merger seem to be a fight between the National Association of Broadcasters and Sirius/XM. It seems to imply that the NAB is the evil side, versus the good of the merger, and that their fight against merger is only based on greed and spurious arguments. This includes calling the Consumer Coalition for Competition in Satellite Radio a shill group run by the NAB. In truth, the connections between the c3sr and NAB are tenuous at best, with the c3sr bringing up a defense against merger that seems to reflect the public's interest. 
* The NAB is the largest anti-satellite organization out there, and they've been consistently fighting against satellite radio since the beginning. If you'd watched the first Senate hearing on this, you'd have seen that the NAB was the only well-known organization present. I've done some research on this, and every time XM or Sirius tries to expand, the NAB is fighting them. The NAB opposes this merger on business grounds, not ethical ones. In fact, I haven't seen any serious opposition by anyone that doesn't have an axe to grind for one reason or another. Interestingly enough, the subscribers of both services seem generally opposed, but that's because they're all afraid that service will suffer. As for me, I'm not specifically pro or anti-merger, but I detest the kinds of underhanded ploys that the NAB has been making, and I will point that out whenever I see it. -- TomXP411[Talk] 17:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: OPPOSITION ARGUMENTS

message: Can someone include this?
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?FilingID=4980805&Type=HTML
70.64.50.221 14:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Napnet 20:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not exactly what the filing says. THe filing says that The new corporation will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Sirius, which will have the brand name. So, in effect, Sirius will own XM. -- TomXP411[Talk] 23:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Could someone please cite the specific text in the filing that says that either the XM "brand" will survive, or that the Sirius "brand" will survive? My reading of the filing is that Sirius is creating a subsidiary, which will be merged into XM, which will be owned by Sirius. But the fact that a company named XM will still exist, or that a company named "Sirius" will still exist, says absolutely nothing about what the brand names will be. From what I can tell, Sirius and XM have said nothing concrete about how the post-merger products will be divided, combined, marketed, branded or anything else, other than some vague comments about enhanced services and ala carte options. I think that saying that the either the XM or the Sirius "brand" will "be kept" is unsupported by the current information, and should be deleted from the article. 72.88.248.252 01:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a note with cite that both XM and Sirius brands will be kept. 72.88.248.252 02:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: CC's existing contract with XM ends in 2008. The merger probably won't be complete until 2008. At a guess, I'd say that, in a bid to save bandwidth, CC won't fit in to the new scheme of things. Of course, that's speculation. Nobody really knows the answer yet. -- TomXP411[Talk] 17:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  XM Branding and Corporation to be kept 

message: I appreciate everyone's enthusiasim with wikinews here, but ther's a few things.
*You can not copy wikipedia content to wikinews (for copyright issues). However you can copy wikinews stuff to wikipedia (if anyone wants the long and involved full why explanation please say so, and I'll tell you)
** Publishing something on Wikipedia grants the Wikipedia community rights to use it, but it does not take away your right to publish the same material elsewhere. You may reproduce your own words elsewhere, as long as they're your words. No attribution or permission is required. :) -- TomXP411[Talk] 17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines on Wikinews says that if you have an ongoing thing (like this merger), to create a master page that links to all of the articles. My plan is publish more articles as new items as they come. At that point, I'll link to the master page, rather than the individual articles. Or I could just link to the articles directly from here. The whole point is to avoid turning this article in to a series of news articles, since someone objected to that.  -- TomXP411[Talk] 16:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thats okay. Bawolff 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to wikinews 

message: Plenty of current event articles have a news timeline. Here's just one example: Global_spread_of_H5N1.
The whole point of this article is to have a synopsis of the current status of the merger. The only way to do that is to link to news sources. I really don't want to edit war over this, but unless you find a better way to keep this stuff, I will keep adding it right back in, just like it is.
If someone out there wants to take a stab at doing a better job of formatting the current events section, then please do. But simply removing it is not servicing the Wikipedia readers. Every edit should be an improvement; removing the current events section is not.
If I'm wrong, someone please tell me. As it is, just saying "this isn't encyclopedic", without pointing to relevant policies, isn't doing anybody any good.
-- TomXP411[Talk] 05:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a timeline for the merger.  Can't this just go there, with less focus on news-like items?--digital_me 06:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's the relevant policy you were looking for at WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. In this case, Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (see subpart 6). That's what Wikinews is for. Hope this helps. Bumm13 06:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That's exactly what I'm looking for. I have removed any minor news blips and have linked to the Wikinews article that IS summarizing daily news on the issue. All information in this article is verifiable, and I hope I'm touching the important points in the merger without getting into the day to day minutae that will likely change over time anyway. -- TomXP411[Talk] 06:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current events 

message: Don't you think that making anonymous edits just to re-order the pictures on the page is a little petty? I'm trying to make the article as neat and professional as possible, and part of this means that we're consistent with the ordering of the names. If you think Sirius is better than XM, or the opposite, then you have a right to an opinion, but please stop making petty edits to the page just to reinforce your POV.
-- TomXP411[Talk] 05:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, although complaining about editing wars probably won't stop the problem, however I've got an idea that might. Instead of arbitrarily listing them in one order or another to begin with, perhaps list them alphabetically. This way, NPOV is preserved, and personal preference can not be cited as the reason for the order. Spazure 08:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switching order of names/pictures 

message: what exactly is meant by "The following milestones have been set for the merger"?  Who set these?  Is this a schedule set by some regulatory body?  Set by XM and Sirius?  Or are they simply milestones that have been reached along the way.   I've not seen any indication that there are set dates that must be met for some reason, especially for regulatory approval.  IT happens when it happens.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milestones 

message: Any implication that the NAB has a state goal of driving satellite radio out of business to reduce competition for terrestrial radio is false. There is no place where this stated goal has been elucidated. There is plenty of innuendo, supposition and implication, but this is not a stated fact. Hence any inclusion of this statement is patently POV, and will be removed from the article. --Mhking (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NAB Opposition

message: Get going, i've seen only two tiny updates so far. On the July 29th Howard Stern show he mentions that they are going to be able to offer lower prices options.169.132.18.249 (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Get going with what, exactly? Any specifics about the merger can be had on http://www.xmmerger.com/ or http://www.siriusmerger.com. This article should be about the new company, not about the merger. However, we don't really know anything about the new company yet. We  don't know what they're going to offer, how programming is going to propagate from one service to the other, or what channels will go and which will stay. As was pointed out to me when I started this article a year and a half ago... wait and see, don't post stuff prematurely. -- TomXP411[Talk] 20:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  umm, Ok, well good job! Carry on. The new page looks good.169.132.18.249 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MERGER APPROVED!

message: Why the name change?  Isn't this article primarily about the merger?  Seems like merger should be still be in the title.  Also this blocks use of the article name for any future merges of the XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio articles or creation of a new article on the merged company.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to at least a few sources, the companies have already formally merged under this title...the new company is simply operating the two services separately for the time being. The merger should be documented in this article, of course, but it is now past-tense for the most part. The two separate articles should be kept separate until the merger is complete and everything is operating under a single roof, so to speak, but the process of merging everything here can begin. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  name change 

message: Okay, merger is over.  Is this article going to change to be about what's up today and in the future, or is it going to continue to be about the done deal?  For instance, I'd like to see some text about the programming merge.  What is the channel line up, what do these channels carry, which ones merged, which disappeared?  And what about the people involved?  What happened to the radio personalities and other employees? - Denimadept (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another possible question is, how long (if ever) will the company continue to operate as Sirius XM? I mean, there has to be some sort of date where (and this is the most likely instance) the XM name is dropped and it becomes just Sirius again. Just another possible question. -- M (speak/spoken) 02:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  Changing a name is an expensive proposition and can sometimes carry legal/social remifications.  That's why 3M continued to keep its legal name as the "Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company" for decades even though it had significantly changed its focus and had been operating informally as 3M for decades.  I see no reason that Sirius XM would drop the XM, since it also helps reinforce the idea that there's a third "*M" "radio" channel, AM, FM, XM.  Of course, a merger or buyout with DirecTV or Dish Network would likely change all that -- they'd likely change their name to reflect their new association or simply be absorbed into the larger company. Banaticus (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Just an interesting note. Has anyone noticed the "I Heart Radio" app by ClearChannel? This is pretty much aimed squarely at Sirius/XM, and DJ's have said as much on the air. Since you can get Sirius/XM and I♥Radio on your iPhone or Blackberry, the only real difference between the two is that one is ad-free and subscription based, and the other is ad-supported and free. As Sirius/XM and broadcast companies both move to on-line distribution, it pretty much puts the lie to the NAB's arguments back during the merger days. -- TomXP411[Talk] 18:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-merger 

message: There are two sections on this page called programming. Should these be combined into one section with two subcategories? --Jefe317 (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programming sections to merge? 

message: I mean, the FCC clearly stated that the condition of Sirius & XM getting licenses was that they could NOT merge. In other words, the government doesn't even follow it's own rules. This is why The American People need to overthrow this bullshit government and switch to direct democracy instead. Politicians only do what's best for them, not for the country. In a normal situation like this, it would've ended either of 2 ways:1) the FCC denies the merger reqest of Siruis & XM, or 2) either Sirius or XM gets their license voided/revoked and that license is then given to the #3 company that was applying for a license (either Primosphere Limited Partnership or the Digital Satellite Broadcasting Corporation). It doesn't matter about iPods, MP3 players, or any of that other crap, because those aren't in the satellite radio industry. The FCC is soo full of shit it isn't funny. This proves that The American People have completely lost control of this country. Maybe what this country needs is another American Revolution, just to accomplish some housekeeping in this country. I mean, the only voice that actually matter in politics is the Electoral College. They're the ones who actually vote for the President & such, not us. 67.173.117.222 (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we try to be civil here? You can make your point without all the profanity. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.127.58 (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, well, I apologize for being a bit obscene, but the Sirius-XM situation proves that our current system of government DOES NOT WORK! I mean, we're expected to obey all these laws & rules that the government makes, when the government itself doesn't even follow its own laws & rules. Something needs to be done to rectify the Sirius-XM situation. Maybe this country needs to wise up, STOP electing politicians who are in the back pockets of Corporate America, & START electing people who are PROVEN to listen to the will of the American People. Again, I say that the Sirius-XM situation is nothing but bull$#!t. 24.15.112.231 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The hypocrisy of the government & the FCC... 

message: This article is in dire need of a line-by-line review.  It still talks about speculation on impacts of the merger as if it hasn't happened yet.  And the entire article is filled with weasel words and opinion-as-fact (see the sound quality section: "A limitation of Sirius XM is the sound quality. ... (I)n many audio systems these services have low value, because of the limited sound quality").  It's obvious there's a popularity contest going on here, which isn't what the article should be about.  At the very least, items without sources or with dubious sources (a single post on some forum?) need to be cut.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.156.136.160 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words, opinion-as-fact, incorrect tense, and dubious sources 

message: There is confusion on the Web, and no definitive answer that I can find, about how many satellites are actually in service.  http://www.n2yo.com/ shows seven Sirius/XM satellites (not nine), and http://www.heavens-above.com/ shows eleven (also not nine).  I have also seen talk that the ground spare XM-4 was actually launched and is no longer a ground spare.  Can anyone clarify?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.127.58 (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, the way to handle this is to say that the fact is unclear, that one source says X (add cite), another source say Y (add cite), and the actual answer may be something else.  You know what you saw, you know where you found it, you can add the text and the cites if you wish, or post them here and someone else will do it. - Denimadept (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many satellites? 

message: There is a tremendous amount of information present in this article that is either already in-place or better-suited at Sirius Satellite Radio.  For example, since this article is about the parent corporation, information about the technical aspects of the receivers or service itself seems irrelevant -- or at the very least, should be reduced to a brief two- or three-sentence overview.  This information would be better suited (and in fact, already exists) in the other entry.
I'm proposing that this article be revised to deal with the finances and operation of the company, while moving the remainder of the information into the other entry.  Or better yet, let's merge them.  There is no reasonable reason why this entry shouldn't be reduced to a section under the other, better-maintained entry.  As it stands now, we have two entries that heavily mirror each other.  Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.156.136.160 (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication with Sirius Satellite Radio entry 

message: Shouldn't the name of this article be SiriusXM Satellite Radio, or at least SiriusXM Radio? It's spelled without the space at http://www.siriusxm.com/contactus. --216.249.144.14 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Name Change Possibility 

message: In regards to this statement in the post-merger timeline: 
"May 4, 2011 - Sirius XM announced that it will streamline its channel lineup with both Sirius and XM services sharing the same channel, with some exceptions."
Seeing into the future I suppose? (today is 5/2/2011)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.214.11 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crystal ball? 

message: I've forgotten where I read it, but those extra channels XM and Sirius had to give up after the merger are still being used by competitors. I don't know who the competitors are or how one picks up these other channels.— Vchimpanzee ·  talk · contributions · 15:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What competitors are allowed to use the extra channels? 

message: OK, I recently merged the separate Sirius and XM channel lineup pages after there were no objections on a merger proposal. This now leads to whether or not we should merge the channel pages of the channels that merged. Unlike the Sirius and XM channel pages which had a lot of unnecessary overlap, this is more due to practicality reasons as a lot of the pages (especially defunct channels) are more-or-less stub articles. They also need to be better sourced (as does the newly-merged channel lineup page). Any thoughts on this? Jgera5 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Channel pages 

message: I propose that Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio be merged into Sirius XM Holdings. The two have become one company; they are no longer separate. They consist of the same lineup and they are marketed as "Sirius XM". I have no idea why wikipedia has always kept them separate since the merger in 2008. Their own corporate information does not categorize them as separate companies. You can no longer invest in Sirius and XM separately; there is only Sirius XM. They are advertized as one company, never separately. The channel lineups have already been combined. These articles suggest the companies are still separate when clearly they are one. The articles are also very outdated in terms of how "separate" the companies are. The channels are the same, the app is the same, it is put in cars as "Sirius XM" (), even the radios are now the same. Yes, there is a distinction based on a user's specific radio (ie. if it were purchased before the 2008 merger, it will still read "Sirius" or "XM"), but as of now they are only marketed as Sirius XM. Saying there are two satellite radio services in the United States is inaccurate. It's a waste of space and information to have these two long articles describing the features of both companies when they merged and are now the same. Thechased (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They should stay separate. They were founded by different groups prior to merger. if this were the case, then you would have to get rid of all the articles that deal with ATT/SBC/Cingular since they are the same company. Sirius XM is what ended up due to the merger. they merged out of necessity. both have separate history to their foundations up until they merge. Sirius xm holdings is the successor company to both of these companies. Any info post merger on the Xm article and Sirius article needs to be deleted because after the merger any addition to the article needs to go on the Sirius XM article. Both Xm and Sirius ceased to exist when Sirius XM was founded at the time of the merger.172.249.17.168 (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose per 172.249.17.168. We do not delete articles simply because their subject merged or has been acquired. ViperSnake151  Talk   02:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - Agree with above two users. The Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio entries should remain, as they have their own separate histories prior to the merger. Those entries should simply be updated to more clearly reflect the merger.--Bernie44 (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Okay, okay I understand the two companies were separate and deserve their respective history articles. More of what I am referring to is things like: in the Sirius article, their "Exclusive channels" are listed, as if they are a separate entity from XM (not the case anymore); the Sirius article's extremely outdated "Receivers" section, "Sirius Internet Radio" section, etc. that still make it seem like Sirius has its own separate services; etc. I believe everything in the "Sirius" and "XM" articles should be in past tense, leading up to a "Merger" section, directing readers to this "Sirius XM" article, where it lists all current features, programs, etc. I think all the nonsense about current services and channels, receivers, etc. in each individual article should be at the merged article. Sirius does not have its own features and neither does XM. They have the same; all information about former features should be referenced in past tense. I would make these changes myself, provided there is an agreement among others to do so. Thechased (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the Sirius and XM articles should remain, but should be revised to be in the past tense and to better reflect that the companies have merged, and I agree that the stuff about current services and channels, etc, should only be at the merged article.--Bernie44 (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Earlier today, an anonymous IP edited Canada 360 (Sirius XM 172, at least the last time that article was updated) to claim that the channel has been shut down due to a CRTC complaint — however, I can find no indication on the CRTC's own website of the CRTC expressing any issues with or complaints about the channel. I also took the precautionary step of checking the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council website as well, given the extremely common phenomenon of people erroneously conflating the two and blaming the CRTC for the CBSC's handiwork, but there's no issue documented there either. However, as I'm not a current Sirius XM subscriber, I can't verify whether the channel has been shut down and the IP is making up their own explanation as to why, or whether the whole thing is just an outright hoax. Could somebody who has a Sirius XM radio check for me whether that channel is still operating or not? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello? Anyone? Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Should some text be added to clarify the three receiver types and their respective packages?  I was of the understanding that shortly after the merger, there were only SiriusXM type radios produced and the older Sirius and XM receivers were no longer produced.  But I was mistaken, and as of 2017, only a few car companies offer the joint SiriusXM radio.   With SiriusXM, additional Xtra channel programming is available with the SiriusXM package.  This is not clear from the website.
From the FAQ on the SiriusXM (not Wiki) website:  
"Each All Access package is basically the same. Select level packages differ in terms of the premium programming they each include. SiriusXM packages are the only packages that feature our Xtra channels."
"These are not available to Sirius or XM subscribers. The Xtra Channels are an additional 15+ channels of music, sports, entertainment and a collection of channels dedicated to Spanish language programming. The Xtra channels are currently available as part of the SiriusXM streaming lineup - so you can now enjoy them on your computer, smartphone, tablet and more. They are also included in several of our newest SiriusXM satellite subscription packages currently available only with Onyx Plus, Lynx or Edge radio, and the SiriusXM Connect Tuner"
Mjkirk12 (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describe in more detail the three receiver types:  Sirius, XM and SiriusXM  and the Xtra channels only on SiriusXM packages? 

message: There is no mention of complaints about sound quality. Web search shows numerous complaints that compression artifacts are obviously heard and audibly worse in quality than FM stereo broadcasts, but there are not many technical explanations why this is so Bachcell (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compression sound quality 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sirius XM Holdings. 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/20150104133240/http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/SIRI/3358511009x0x741176/DECE4582-303F-41DC-8F2A-AE1F048739E9/SiriusXM_Annual_Report_and_Proxy_2013.pdf to http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/SIRI/3358511009x0x741176/DECE4582-303F-41DC-8F2A-AE1F048739E9/SiriusXM_Annual_Report_and_Proxy_2013.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170607222527/http://www.radiomagonline.com/currents/business/radio_sirius_begins_satellite to http://radiomagonline.com/currents/business/radio_sirius_begins_satellite/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070222221224/http://investor.sirius.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=230306 to http://investor.sirius.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?releaseid=230306
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) 09:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :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. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sirius XM Holdings →  – The service is mostly known by its full name, not its corporate name. JE98 (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

text: 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.
* I object to this result. It should be at Sirius XM because it is more concise and the common name. ViperSnake151  Talk   15:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 4 September 2018 

message: Page history of Sirius XM Satellite Radio:
 20:21, 27 July 2014‎ Wosch21149 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (32 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (Target page moved) 
 20:39, 29 July 2008‎ Huntster (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (29 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (fix link.) 
 16:54, 29 July 2008‎ Stickguy (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (23 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (moved Sirius XM Satellite Radio to Sirius XM: since we can't move to "Sirius XM Radio" at the moment, this will do as a compromise)
And of the talk page:
 23:25, 27 July 2014‎ Xqbot (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (37 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (Bot: Fixing double redirect to Talk:Sirius XM Holdings) 
 20:41, 29 July 2008‎ Redirect fixer (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (34 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (Talk:Sirius XM has been moved; it now redirects to Talk:Sirius XM Radio.) 
 16:54, 29 July 2008‎ Stickguy (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (28 bytes) (+28)‎ . . (moved Talk:Sirius XM Satellite Radio to Talk:Sirius XM: since we can't move to "Sirius XM Radio" at the moment, this will do as a compromise) 
I think this is worth preserving so I do so here. Andrewa (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.</div>
* I object to this result. It should be at Sirius XM because it is more concise and the common name. ViperSnake151  Talk   15:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Target history

message: I believe the custom stations feature was discontinued last year. The Mo-Ja'al (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Custom stations 

message: It was formed by the 2008 merger of Sirius Satellite Radio and XM Satellite Radio, merging them into SiriusXM Radio. ... At the end of 2013, Sirius XM reorganized their corporate structure, which made Sirius XM Radio Inc. a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Sirius XM Holdings, Inc.
So if "SiriusXM Radio" is not merely a short form for "Sirius XM Radio Inc.", just what is it then? A registered trademark? A brand? A channel? A conventional stylization of their official corporation name with no formal status? Used in their own literature, or merely used by everyone else? 
This is why people consult Wikipedia:
* because when a corporation can't make up its own mind, it will hardly ever document this in any place on their website you can locate in under half an hour;
* whereas Wikipedia, in my experience, often does a pretty good job of at least naming the inconsistency in the article lead, before you descend into the corporate weeds, already fatally confused on some minor point, should you happen to prize clarity. — MaxEnt 17:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: End of rant? It seems that way. Wiki doesn't do a good job. It's loyal fact checkers do an ok job if they're dedicated. At times, they do a really lousy job. Newb787 (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  You had ''one'' job ... 

message: Why does Sirius XM have crappy music nowadays on its stations except for the stations 6 7 and 8  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.11.93 (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The better question is how is Sirius/XM still profitable and who are the dummies who subscribe to their satellite service? Newb787 (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Car makers include trials and they automaticly renew unless cancelled and Sirius XM makes it difficult to cancel so many people are subscribed but not listening to it. 71.241.135.56 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does sirus xm have crapppy music? 

message: Talk section here needs cleaning up especialy from talk going back to 2008 including satellite repeaters. Newb787 (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurgence and growth: this section needs updating with new and relevant material and...