Talk:Nickelodeon

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 not moved. --BDD (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Nickelodeon → Nickelodeon (television network) – Back in 2011, a consensus was reached that the article about the Nickelodeon television network be the focus of the Wikipedia article titled "Nickelodeon". I am suggesting this name change due to the fact that when the word "nickelodeon" made its first appearance, it meant something far different than the name of a television network. I don't care how popular or mainstream the network is deemed to be. Sure, the article on the network may have more hits, but look at the topics named "Engelbert Humperdinck" and "The Four Seasons". The pages on Engelbert Humperdinck the singer and the band The Four Seasons I'm assuming are more visited than those on Engelbert Humperdinck the composer and The Four Seasons concerti by Vivaldi, respectively. But the article on the singer is not just named with just the name, and the one on the band is not just named with the name of the band. Therefore (in addition to this page move request), I suggest that there ought to be some sort of disambiguation page, or that the article with the title "Nickelodeon" be focused on the movie theater rather than the television network, with a reference at the top saying something like "for the modern television network, see Nickelodeon (television network)". 69.121.17.200 (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Since there is a disambiguation link already given at the top of the article, I feel it as an unnecessary move..Hence Oppose Herald talk with me 15:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• No, I feel like people who type in the word "nickelodeon" probably want the network. That would make this article a primary topic. So strong oppose. Red Slash 16:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support the move and making the nickel theatres (the only nickelodeons prior to 1979) the primary topic. The television network could be renamed tomorrow (as it was in 1979), but the early cinemas will remain nickelodeons forever. The original nickelodeon is also a more important topic for an encyclopedia. When I search for nickelodeon + britannica on Google, the motion picture theatre comes up first, even though Britannica has an article on the television network. I presume that's because when people want an encyclopedic treatment, they are looking for the early theatre. The current setup makes Wikipedia a go-to source for contemporary pop culture, but not so much for the history of cinema. Both of these topic areas are legitimate, but one is more important. —Srnec (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per the very cogent words of User:Srnec, explaining in simple words wp:primarytopic: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". Emphasis not added. Emphasis that could be added would be upon words like "enduring notability" and "educational value". ¨^walk victor falk ^talk 12:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• TV network? Unreal7 (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary and already catered for via disambiguation link at head of article. As far as "long-term significance" goes, nickelodeon movie theatres enjoyed their primary period of importance, according to the article, from "1905 to 1913". About eight years - less than a quarter of the period of time for which the television network has existed. For both current and long-term significance, the television network wins. Now if this were a debate about whether the 'Oxygen' article should cover the very popular chemical element, or the cable channel, clearly the channel would not win, since actual oxygen has genuine and substantial long-term and current significance. But a specialist type of movie theatre which was popular for less than a decade more than a century ago, and not since? I'd have a hard time supporting that. And I'd elect to oppose the proposed move for that reason. Bonusballs (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  The movie theatre is hardly "specialist" and the duration of the popularity says nothing about their long-term significance. This response represents a failure to respond to the actual arguments. Srnec (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  The movie theatre is hardly "specialist"
  While nickelodeons were mainstream in their heyday, they're very much a specialist subject today. I studied film history and have a keen interest in old-time movie theaters, but I'm well aware that most people hearing the word "Nickelodeon" will think of the TV channel. Heck, even I would.
  and the duration of the popularity says nothing about their long-term significance.
  It isn't the sole factor, but I don't understand how you can dismiss it as irrelevant. Nickelodeons played a non-trivial role in the development of cinema, but they didn't remain a part of everyday life for long and don't receive a great deal of attention (even from a historical perspective). "Long-term significance" describes a situation in which something remains prominent over an extended period, not one in which it simply existed earlier and wasn't forgotten entirely.
  This response represents a failure to respond to the actual arguments.
  Some of them, such as the nominator's argument that "the word 'nickelodeon' made its first appearance" in the cinematic context and your argument that a "pop culture" topic should be deemed less important, have no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —David Levy 16:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  Your argument that a "pop culture" topic should be deemed less important, have no basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
  It does have a basis in policy, as Victor Falk pointed out above, to quote: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". Pop culture subjects generally have less enduring notablility and less educational value. After all, Nickelodeon has its own website people can visit.
  Most people hearing the word "Nickelodeon" will think of the TV channel.
  Probably, but that's because they're American. This argument has no basis in policy. Srnec (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  It does have a basis in policy, as Victor Falk pointed out above, to quote...
  Again, you're quoting a guideline that I helped to write.
  Pop culture subjects generally have less enduring notablility and less educational value.
  That's an overly broad statement. In the "oxygen" example, a chemical element essential to the sustenance of most living organisms obviously has far greater long-term significance than a TV channel does. The situation at hand is vastly different, as an obsolete and relatively obscure type of motion picture venue is hardly a fundamental part of our existence. We don't allow a topic's current popularity to outweigh all other considerations, but we don't hold it against the subject either.
  After all, Nickelodeon has its own website people can visit.
  Is your point that Wikipedia's readers can simply go there instead?
  Probably, but that's because they're American.
  Huh? The cinemas known as "nickelodeons" were a primarily American concept, while the TV channel has versions in numerous countries.
  This argument has no basis in policy.
  It has a basis in the guideline that we've been discussing. "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." —David Levy 20:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  Is your point that Wikipedia's readers can simply go there instead?
  No, my point was that we have more "educational value" when we are not redundant. A Wikipedia article that is entirely composed of information gleaned from other publicly accessible websites (and that links to them) is not at all useless, but it is less useful than an article that is based on print sources that are harder to access or websites that required a subscription.
  I think you misunderstand the guideline. You wrote I'm well aware that most people hearing the word "Nickelodeon" will think of the TV channel. and then quoted the guideline, A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. What you think of when you hear X is not the same thing as what you are seeking when you search for X. I am ready to believe that most people are looking for the TV channel. I am not prepared to concede either that the overwhelming majority of users are, or that page view statistics are a relevant indicator. Srnec (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  No, my point was that we have more "educational value" when we are not redundant. A Wikipedia article that is entirely composed of information gleaned from other publicly accessible websites (and that links to them) is not at all useless, but it is less useful than an article that is based on print sources that are harder to access or websites that required a subscription.
  That argument has absolutely nothing to do with the guideline, wherein the phrase "educational value" is used in reference to the topic, not Wikipedia's coverage thereof.
  You're inventing a criterion out of whole cloth. And it's highly illogical, as it often would lead us to favor relatively obscure subjects over those that predominate in the real world (and as a result, online). That's precisely what you want us to do in this instance.
  I think you misunderstand the guideline.
  Again, you're telling me that I misunderstand a guideline that I helped to write.
  You wrote "I'm well aware that most people hearing the word 'Nickelodeon' will think of the TV channel." and then quoted the guideline, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." What you think of when you hear X is not the same thing as what you are seeking when you search for X.
  You're deconstructing these statements to the point of absurdity. I'm addressing readers' relative familiarity with the subjects. Far more people are aware of the TV channel's existence, so readers typing "Nickelodeon" are far more likely to seek information about it than about a type of motion picture venue of which they probably have never heard.
  I am ready to believe that most people are looking for the TV channel. I am not prepared to concede either that the overwhelming majority of users are, or that page view statistics are a relevant indicator.
  But you are prepared to "presume [that when] people want an encyclopedic treatment, they are looking for the early theatre", based solely on the fact that "when [you] search for nickelodeon + britannica on Google, the motion picture theatre comes up first". —David Levy 22:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  Again, you're telling me that I misunderstand a guideline that I helped to write.
  There is no reason you can't misunderstand what you helped to write.
  You're deconstructing these statements to the point of absurdity.
  You're just not being careful.
  The phrase "educational value" is used in reference to the topic, not Wikipedia's coverage thereof.
  I know. I have been clear about what I think of the topics. I am inclined to agree with you that I equivocated.
  But you are prepared to presume ... based solely on the fact that ...
  No, not "based solely based on that fact". I reasoned the other way. To explain the search results I hypothesised a cause. Srnec (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  There is no reason you can't misunderstand what you helped to write.
  Your interpretation of the "long-term significance" criterion contradicts the concepts discussed when it was written (when its wording and the underlying rationales were analyzed extensively).
  You're just not being careful.
  You're just being pedantic.
  No, not "based solely based on that fact". I reasoned the other way. To explain the search results I hypothesised a cause.
  I'm baffled as to what distinction you seek to draw. You noticed a Google search result and reasoned — with no corroborating evidence or consideration of results from competing search engines or the actual encyclopedia's internal search tool — that it reflected a particular expectation on the part of readers. Are you noting that you didn't have the idea in mind beforehand? If so, why would that even matter (let alone affect the accuracy of my statement that your presumption was "based solely on" the aforementioned Google search result)?
  I also struggle to understand how you can regard such a conclusion as valid while deeming Wikipedia's page view statistics (and by extension, the hypothesised cause) irrelevant. —David Levy 00:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  The distinction is between getting a result and asking "Why might the result be this?", and getting a result and say "This shows that ____." My reasoning was abductive. I am noting precisely that I did have the idea beforehand. That's why it seemed like a reasonable explanation. I think the page view stats show that this article is what people want, but in what numbers? They do not let us know how many folks (a) got here by internal links or (b) were looking for something else and gave up. And the guideline you helped write does not tell us whether to privilege usage or long-term significance. This Ngram compares "nickelodeon" and its plural with "Nickelodeon". It shows that it wasn't until 1994 that the combined result of the two lower-case nickelodeons was less than the results for the upper case Nickelodeon. Srnec (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  I am noting precisely that I did have the idea beforehand.
  Why is this relevant? If anything, it introduces the possibility of confirmation bias.
  That's why it seemed like a reasonable explanation.
  Perhaps I've misunderstood. Are you defending your presumption, or are you conceding the point and explaining why you erred?
  I think the page view stats show that this article is what people want, but in what numbers?
  In 2012, the Nickelodeon page was viewed 1,154,818 times. The redirects Nickelodeon (TV channel) and Nickelodeon (TV Channel) (which the case-insensitive stats.grok.se treats as one and the same) collectively received an additional 351,733 views. Ignoring the dozens of other redirects (which would require too much effort to include), this totals 1,506,551 views. Meanwhile, Nickelodeon (disambiguation) received 27,912 views, which I'll subtract from the article's total (based on the generous assumption that every disambiguation page view followed an accidental Nickelodeon view). That leaves 1,478,639 views.
  During the same period, Nickelodeon (movie theater) and its redirects received a combined 90,173 views. Let's throw in the combined 38,276 views received by Nickelodeon (film) and its one redirect, along with Nickelodeon (disambiguation)'s 27,912 views (despite the fact that some of both articles' visitors arrived via that page, so they're being counted twice), bringing us to a grand total of 156,361 views — well under 1/9 the number of views received by the Nickelodeon article (with most of its redirects not even counted, all disambiguation page views deducted, and no consideration of the views received by the numerous related articles).
  Heck, the pair of Nickelodeon redirects that I did count (Nickelodeon (TV channel) and Nickelodeon (TV Channel)) received more than twice the page views of Nickelodeon (disambiguation), Nickelodeon (movie theater), Nickelodeon (film) and all of their redirects combined.
  They do not let us know how many folks (a) got here by internal links
  Please elaborate.
  or (b) were looking for something else and gave up.
  If you believe that this occurs to a significant extent (let alone one that might come close to accounting for the aforementioned disparity in page views), you essentially assert that our navigational hatnote system is fundamentally broken.
  If that's the case, moving the movie theater article to the base title (as you advocate) would lead far more readers (those seeking the TV channel's article, as you acknowledge "most people" are) to "give up".
  And I'll remind you that this article was moved to its current title in 2011. In 2010, when it resided at Nickelodeon (TV channel), it was viewed 1,750,851 times (not counting any redirects). Meanwhile, Nickelodeon (movie theater) and its redirects received a combined 77,826 views, Nickelodeon (film) and its redirect received a combined 35,930 views, and the disambiguation page (located at Nickelodeon) received 192,212 views.
  The disambiguation page's 85% reduction in views between 2010 and 2012 indicates that a vast majority of visitors to the base title sought the article about the TV channel (unless, as you postulate, they simply "gave up" instead of utilizing the hatnote).
  And the guideline you helped write does not tell us whether to privilege usage or long-term significance.
  That's because it depends on the situation (hence the need for discussions such as this one).
  This Ngram compares "nickelodeon" and its plural with "Nickelodeon". It shows that it wasn't until 1994 that the combined result of the two lower-case nickelodeons was less than the results for the upper case Nickelodeon.
  That search is confined to a corpus of English-language books (including works of fiction, wherein generic terms appear far more frequently than trademarks do), and it still shows the capitalized "Nickelodeon" predominating for about the past two decades. Imagine what a comparable search of newspapers and magazines would show. —David Levy 23:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps I've misunderstood. Are you defending your presumption, or are you conceding the point and explaining why you erred?
  I am not defending my presumption—although I think it was a reasonable one and may be true—but am explaining why I abduced the explanation I did. It's not confirmation bias so much as hypothesis bias. I prefer hypotheses that are in line with my assumptions. (As do we all, no?) We still don't know if my presumption was wrong, but as an explanation of the Google result it certainly looks very shaky.
  Please elaborate.
  Folks who got here by internal links were not necessarily searching for it. Their presence here could be explained by things other than a desire to learn more about Nickelodeon. What's more, the links can be fixed to point to the correct page. So those users who got here by internal links are unaffected by any page move. Only users who search for Nickelodeon using our internal function would be likely to be adversely affected.
  You essentially assert that our navigational hatnote system is fundamentally broken.
  I wonder sometimes. I do not know if non-Wikipedians (i.e., mere readers) regularly use them or just hit the back button to look at the Google results again. Your statistics on page views in 2010 are interesting. Since the dab page had only a fraction of the views that the channel's page had, it shows that most people got the latter probably either by internal link or Google search. I do not believe they were seriously hindered then or will be now. Unless my reasoning is in error, the stats do show that roughtly 85% of people who search for the term "nickelodeon" are indeed looking for the TV network, which is overwhelming. I will concede that point, although I think your stats buttress the argument that only a fraction of readers would be inconvenienced (although more than are now).
  That's because it depends on the situation (hence the need for discussions such as this one).
  Absolutely.
  That search is confined to a corpus of English-language books (including works of fiction, wherein generic terms appear far more frequently than trademarks do), and it still shows the capitalized "Nickelodeon" predominating for about the past two decades.
  I think the steady line for the lower-case nickelodeons is a good sign of their enduring notability. The capitalised Nickelodeon line is a spike. Do you expect it to level off, continue upwards or to decline? What do you expect the nickelodeon(s) lines to do?
  I understand you are more concerned with getting people where they want to go. If that's the criterion we should be using then you are right. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  I am not defending my presumption—although I think it was a reasonable one and may be true—
  I disagree that the inference is reasonable, particularly when it's reached without checking Bing or the relevant website's internal search tool (which, as I noted, returned the two links in the opposite order). However, I don't doubt that you arrived at the presumption in good faith and without knowledge of any contradictory information.
  but am explaining why I abduced the explanation I did. It's not confirmation bias so much as hypothesis bias.
  That seems like a distinction without a difference. Confirmation bias "is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses."
  I prefer hypotheses that are in line with my assumptions. (As do we all, no?)
  Of course. But a sound hypothesis should accurately reflect the relevant information available, not evidence that's been cherry-picked and massaged to deliver the conclusion desired.
  We still don't know if my presumption was wrong,
  I'd be interested to read an argument as to why the aforementioned Google search outweighs this query.
  but as an explanation of the Google result it certainly looks very shaky.
  Agreed.
  Folks who got here by internal links were not necessarily searching for it. Their presence here could be explained by things other than a desire to learn more about Nickelodeon.
  I'm confused as to why someone arriving at the article via an internal link is less likely to seek information about the article's subject.
  What's more, the links can be fixed to point to the correct page.
  That's always the case.
  So those users who got here by internal links are unaffected by any page move.
  Even when a usage is not primary, editors often insert unpiped links (e.g. [[Nickelodeon]] instead of [[Nickelodeon (TV channel)|Nickelodeon]]) without checking where they lead. Those added in error persist until they're noticed and corrected (which is trickier than doing so en masse due to a page move). When a usage is primary, the likelihood is even greater. That's one of the reasons why primary topics occupy base titles.
  Your statistics on page views in 2010 are interesting. Since the dab page had only a fraction of the views that the channel's page had, it shows that most people got the latter probably either by internal link or Google search.
  There's no need to single out Google (as opposed to search engines in general), but yes, that's probably true (of this article and Wikipedia's articles in general).
  I do not believe they were seriously hindered then or will be now.
  By that logic, practically any page move could be justified.
  No one asserts that the previous setup was bad (or that it would be now). The current one is simply better.
  I think the steady line for the lower-case nickelodeons is a good sign of their enduring notability.
  It's fairly safe to assume that nickelodeons are roughly as notable now as they were twenty years ago and fifty years ago. Given their longstanding obsolescence/disuse, there's little reason for that situation to change.
  Maintaining the same level of obscurity (as opposed to becoming more obscure) isn't substantial enough to satisfy the "long-term significance" criterion. At the same time, I wouldn't argue that the TV channel prevails on this front, given its relative recentness. In this instance, I don't believe that the "long-term significance" criterion is applicable. That leaves the "usage" criterion, which clearly points to the TV channel.
  The capitalised Nickelodeon line is a spike. Do you expect it to level off, continue upwards or to decline?
  I can't predict the line's trajectory, but it seems likely that usage of "Nickelodeon" in reference to the TV channel and related entities will continue to predominate into the foreseeable future. If, at some point, these properties cease to exist and/or one or more other subjects with the same name come to be, the situation might change (and of course, Wikipedia can reevaluate its pages' titles in response to such shifts).
  What do you expect the nickelodeon(s) lines to do?
  As indicated above, I expect little fluctuation.
  I understand you are more concerned with getting people where they want to go. If that's the criterion we should be using then you are right.
  The matter has been debated (and you aren't the first to argue that we should favor subjects of greater "importance"), but "getting people where they want to go" remains our standard practice. —David Levy 02:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  But a sound hypothesis should accurately reflect the relevant information available, not evidence that's been cherry-picked and massaged to deliver the conclusion desired.
  A hypothesis comes before testing. My hypothesis about the result was not based on the result. I did not test my hypothesis, but you did.
  I'm confused as to why someone arriving at the article via an internal link is less likely to seek information about the article's subject.
  Strictly speaking, they are not. The point was that the presence of the link explains why they got here, not anything external to Wikipedia (or internal to the reader). They clicked the link because it was there and they would not have visited Nickelodeon otherwise. The whole point was that page view statistics are not a transparent indicator of what readers are looking for, only of what they are looking at.
  By that logic, practically any page move could be justified.
  I think there's a misunderstanding here. My point was that under the previous setup few people had to go through the dab page. Under the current setup, same thing. By no means is that always the case in a requested move. Or are you saying that it is and I just haven't noticed? (Could be, I don't check page view stats very much.)
  I don't believe that the "long-term significance" criterion is applicable.
  I know. Your main reson seems to be that the intent behind the guideline was for it to apply to cases of more transient notability (than the cable channel). We are at an impasse regarding the criterion to use. I agree that the by the criterion you favour, we should keep this article where it is. Do you agree with me that if we judged the issue only by the long-term significance criterion, the theater would be the primary topic? Or do you you think there is no such primary topic?
  Maintaining the same level of obscurity...
  I would not have thought they were as obscure as you keep saying. Perhaps I am just out of touch.
  You aren't the first to argue that we should favor subjects of greater "importance".
  Wikipedia has always been in danger of being bogged down with pop culture. I think it's a systemic bias, but I have no problem with editors working in whatever areas they prefer. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  A hypothesis comes before testing.
  I'm not criticising you for failing to test your hypothesis. I'm questioning its origins. (Well, I was, but I think that the matter has been clarified sufficiently.)
  The point was that the presence of the link explains why they got here, not anything external to Wikipedia (or internal to the reader). They clicked the link because it was there and they would not have visited Nickelodeon otherwise. The whole point was that page view statistics are not a transparent indicator of what readers are looking for, only of what they are looking at.
  If someone chooses to visit an article — whether by following an external link, following an internal link or utilizing Wikipedia's search box — it's reasonable to assume that he/she is interested in reading and/or editing it. (Exceptions doubtlessly exist, but they surely arise throughout the encyclopedia and shouldn't impact statistical comparisons to a significant extent.)
  Whether someone decided to visit a particular article independently or because he/she encountered a link has no bearing on the subject's overall prominence. If subject x's article is visited via internal links five times more frequently than subject y's article is, it's likely that the search ratio is not dramatically different.
  I think there's a misunderstanding here. My point was that under the previous setup few people had to go through the dab page. Under the current setup, same thing. By no means is that always the case in a requested move. Or are you saying that it is and I just haven't noticed?
  As I noted in my previous reply, I believe that Wikipedia's articles in general are most commonly accessed via internal links and external search engines (such as Google).
  However, I regard a 164,300-view/85% reduction in the disambiguation page's usage as a significant improvement. That might constitute "few people" in relative terms, but not in absolute terms (in my view).
  Do you agree with me that if we judged the issue only by the long-term significance criterion, the theater would be the primary topic? Or do you you think there is no such primary topic?
  The latter. When I state that "I don't believe that the 'long-term significance' criterion is applicable", I don't mean that it's merely outweighed; I mean that it literally doesn't apply. As I noted previously, "'long-term significance' describes a situation in which something remains prominent over an extended period, not one in which it simply existed earlier and wasn't forgotten entirely."
  I would not have thought they were as obscure as you keep saying. Perhaps I am just out of touch.
  Compared with the TV channel and related entities, they're relatively obscure (and have been for many years). The available evidence shows this.
  Wikipedia has always been in danger of being bogged down with pop culture. I think it's a systemic bias, but I have no problem with editors working in whatever areas they prefer.
  We're in complete agreement here. As I tell users when they complain about a topical imbalance, they're welcome to help narrow the gap by contributing articles on the notable subjects that they prefer. —David Levy 01:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Our goal is to direct readers to the articles that they seek. The television channel isn't the word's original meaning, but it's the primary meaning nowadays.
  Bonusballs has addressed the "long-term significance" argument well, and I'll add that the criterion is intended to discourage a determination of primacy based on a temporary/ephemeral spike in interest. For example, if someone by the name of "Patrick Stewart" were to crash an airplane into the Eiffel Tower (resulting in a major scare but no serious damage), there might be a brief period in which discussion of "Patrick Stewart" focused mainly on this incident, but that wouldn't be a valid reason to move the Patrick Stewart article to Patrick Stewart (actor) and retarget the base title to an article about the hypothetical pilot or crash. A scenario in which a TV channel has been the predominant usage of a term for decades is hardly comparable. —David Levy 00:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  Doesn't a hatnote "direct readers to the articles that they seek"? Bonusballs had misunderstood the long-term significance argument: he seem to think it depends on the nickelodeon theatre phenomenon being of long duration. The TV channel is one of many—hundreds or thousands—of like channels. The theatre was unique, a first of its kind. How rapidly it was superceded is but a sign of its significance. (As an aside, the term "nickelodeon" was unambiguous for more decades than it has primarily meant the TV channel.) Srnec (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  Doesn't a hatnote "direct readers to the articles that they seek"?
  Yes, it does. But we seek to maximize the ease with which readers access their desired articles (by minimizing the number of steps required). Most persons reaching the Nickelodeon page seek the article about the television channel, so placing a disambiguation page or different article at that title would cause far more hindrance than help. A navigational hatnote is intended to assist a minority of readers arriving at the page.
  Bonusballs had misunderstood the long-term significance argument:
  As noted above, said argument is based upon a misunderstanding of the guideline (which, incidentally, I helped to write).
  The TV channel is one of many—hundreds or thousands—of like channels.
  Firstly, the Nickelodeon channel is among the most noteworthy in the history of cable television. Secondly, if you're under the impression that the "long-term significance" criterion always is applicable (i.e. that when multiple entities share a name, we must determine which has the greatest long-term significance and make this a prime consideration in the articles' naming), you're mistaken. Quite often, no subject "has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with [the] term". This is explained in the guideline. ("In [many cases], only one sense of primacy is relevant.")
  (As an aside, the term "nickelodeon" was unambiguous for more decades than it has primarily meant the TV channel.)
  Again, the intent behind the "long-term significance" criterion is to discourage the establishment of primacy based on transient prominence (a situation likely to change in the near future, rendering our navigational setup counterproductive), not to encourage comparisons based on which subject predominated for "more decades". —David Levy 16:05/18:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  Bonusballs addressed long-term significance by stating how long nickelodeon theatres were around, but that's like saying that World War II was less significant than the war in Afghanistan because it was shorter. Long-term significance, as defined by the guideline, is composed of "enduring notability" and "educational value". We do not yet know whether the TV channel will be equally notable ~100 years after it ceases to exist, but I won't hold my breath. My Britannica point was that for encyclopedic treatment, people can expect the nickel cinemas. After all, the network has its own website. Wikipedia ought to be a go-to source for more than just what is already easily found on the web. (Note how few offline references this article has. Contrast that with the theatre article.) Srnec (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  Bonusballs addressed long-term significance by stating how long nickelodeon theatres were around, but that's like saying that World War II was less significant than the war in Afghanistan because it was shorter.
  The duration of an entity's existence isn't the sole factor in determining its long-term significance, but it certainly can play a role (and this is considerably more likely in the case of leisure than in the case of war). Had nickelodeons remained popular longer than about a decade, perhaps they'd have had a greater societal impact. But they didn't, so they're a relative obscurity (and I say that as a past student of cinema history with a continuing interest in the subject).
  Long-term significance, as defined by the guideline, is composed of "enduring notability" and "educational value". We do not yet know whether the TV channel will be equally notable ~100 years after it ceases to exist, but I won't hold my breath.
  You're absolutely right that we don't know. That's why the "long-term significance" criterion needn't enter the equation. (As noted above, it isn't always applicable.) Your apparent interpretation essentially amounts to favoritism of any defunct but unforgotten subject over any contemporary subject with the same name.
  My Britannica point was that for encyclopedic treatment, people can expect the nickel cinemas.
  And you've arrived at this conclusion because "when [you] search for nickelodeon + britannica on Google, the motion picture theatre comes up first". Meanwhile, a Bing search returns the two articles in the opposite order (on my end, at least). So does a "nickelodeon" query via the Encyclopædia Britannica website's internal search function.
  After all, the network has its own website. Wikipedia ought to be a go-to source for more than just what is already easily found on the web.
  Are you arguing that we should pointedly favor subjects with less coverage elsewhere on the Web?
  —David Levy 20:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  Are you arguing that we should pointedly favor subjects with less coverage elsewhere on the Web?
  Yes. Not absolutely, of course, but up to a point I think it just follows from our purpose, as recognised by our guidelines. The more we rely on the internet above other sources the more insular we (and the internet) become. I have actually seen editors behave as if only sources publicly accessible on the web are verifiable. There are obscure historical figures who meet our notability guidelines and have barely a mention on the web. (Especially if nobody has written about them in English much.) Srnec (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  Then you seek to fundamentally alter Wikipedia's conventions.
  We aspire to provide encyclopedic treatment of all subjects meeting our notability standards, irrespective of the amount of coverage they've received on the Internet or in the English language. Editors who regard only Web-based sources as verifiable are incorrect, but we don't discriminate against topics with extensive online exposure either. —David Levy 22:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  We aspire to provide encyclopedic treatment of all subjects meeting our notability standards
  I did not dispute that.
  Your question was vague and I regret responding to it. This debate is not for here, so I won't try to defend myself, other than to note that we already recognise vital articles and some wikiprojects have importance scales. Srnec (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  We prioritize based on the subjects themselves, not others' coverage or lack thereof. —David Levy 00:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as it is per above. JJ98 (Talk) 03:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:Common name and WP:Primary topic; our readers will undoubtedly usually be looking for the article about the television network. Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Source of name

Past few edits have added info on the alleged source of the name Nickelodeon. After two non-RS, Nickelfan added a book as the source. I cannot find anything mentioned in the book related to the quote using the preview on Google Books. Can someone please verify this? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I linked it to that book is because it was part of a "teaser" that was featuring interviews that were deleted from the book. First, I sourced it from the original Facebook post, but then, I sourced it from the book. If you can suggest a better source, please do. Nickelfan (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

So it's not in the book itself? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Nickelfan (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Then you can't use it as a source. Sorry. Is there a site that has those lines as part of a promo (like on Amazon or something?) EvergreenFir (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Only Facebook. Again, as I said, this was a deleted section from the book that was posted on the book's Facebook page for promotion of the book. Nickelfan (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Split

Can we split the history to History of Nickelodeon? The Toon Disney Guy (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Citicism, Controversy, and Censorship/Edit Request 5/12/14

Could there be a section on the artical that shows the critisism, controversy, and censorship of the network over the years? For example, many longtime fans of the channel are upset of the state of Nickelodeon as it has been for the past few years (A.K.A The 2009 Relaunch And New Text Logo). Some souces of citicism, controversy, and censorship can be found all over the internet, including YouTube. --24.147.1.197 (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley

Sounds like soapboxing to me... ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 15:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Logo variant

Should we include the "white text on orange background" variant of the current logo, as shown here? Nickelodeon seems to be using this variant on their DVD packaging, and even in their network identification bumpers and social media icons. IMO, it would be worth a mention. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 15:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think white on an orange background overwhelms the infobox but the logo in the infobox is for identification and if the current logo is no longer used to identify the network, should be changed to one that does. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2015

Nickelodeon → Nickelodeon (TV channel) – Since 2015, its rival Cartoon Network began to begin the most popular TV channel, as a result, I suggesting that the page will moved to Nickelodeon (TV channel), the page that is simply Nickelodeon will remain but as the list of names that uses Nickelodeon name, Disney Channel remains the most popular TV channel. EvergreenFir 3.0 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see any reason to move! Nickelodeon is the primary topic for Nickelodeon. – nafSadh did say 00:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• it began to duplicate just like Internet Explorer, and Cartoon Network has been converted into the most popular TV channel thanks to the exited adult animated series Rick and Morty, which surpassed SpongeBob SquarePants, and the CN animated show Mad has been surpassed by Nickelodeon animated show Breadwinners. EvergreenFir 3.0 (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)