Talk:Squawk Box

Canadian childrens show

Does anyone remember the Canadian kids TV show with the same name? Is it worthy of its own article or a disambiguation? It was a pretty hilarious show ("so there I was, colouring my map of Manitoba orange...") Adam Bishop 19:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Put a disambiguation note at the beginning of the article and create an article for that program. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:04:59, 2005-07-28 (UTC)

Squawk box

We do sometime need an article on the unit of telephonic equipment from which the TV show derived its name. And yes, probably a disambig page too. Don't have the time right now. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I agree, a search on Wiki for the term "squawk box" should take you to a disambiguation page that includes the CNBC show and the device that the show is named after. KyuzoGator (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Squawk on the Street actually part of Squawk Box? It appears that this article is treating the former as one but my understanding is it is a separate programme. --58.69.64.221 (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

CNBC copied name?

Moved this comment by [[User:69.86.42.233] from top of article page:

Actually Tradethenews.com started the term and the business idea back in 1997. Trade The News CNBC only copied them and pretty much still does except for their exclusives.

This needs to be incorporated into the article if included. Jokestress 01:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Except...this Squawk Box started in 1995...Vikramsidhu 19:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CNBC U.S. - Squawk Box logo 1997.gif

(mutliple dates)

I would think that the screen-cap of the promotional logo (the lead image) would qualify as Template:Non-free_promotional. The old-logo-sceencap image (Squawkbox oldgraphics.jpg) is a screencap of the show itself - and it is low-res. Is this considered fair-use, and if so, how do you "verify" that it is such to the satisfaction of the bot?

<sarcasm> Maybe someone could call the CNBC customer service line and ask, "Is it okay if the English Wikipedia uses a low-resolution screen-capture from *20 years ago*, of an anchor who probably isn't even working at the show any more, showing a logo and graphics style that hasn't been used for quite a while? Is that okay? Can you find a lawyer to certify that in front of a notary in the State Of California (and possibly other jurisdictions) that Wikipedia won't get sued by some over-zealous copyright lawyer? </sarcasm>

As for the set image (111807h.jpg), that is an image from a magazine (not from the show), so that would be another lawyer to contact.

Sorry for the sarcasm, this stuff just drives me up the wall. Maybe the WikiMedia foundation could stage a sit-in in the guest-gallery of the U.S. House Of Representative chambers until someone brings up a reasonable reform for the copyright, trademark, and patent system in the U.S. (And of the sometimes-crazy-seeming "doctrine" of "if you don't protect it, you lose" for patents, which at least in some cases would seem only to enrich lawyers arguing about whether or not Apple infringed on a patent of the 'concept of a "web carousel" ("Apple Sued for using a Web Carousel but has a Prior Granted Patent Covering Carousels". Oh, but I see Apple has their own patent covering that particularly presentation format.

So now Apple can sue every other company that uses that format. Like, oh, at least a few advertisers and news web-sites I saw yesterday? One of them I saw even use the same "Apple-like-format" of "having little circles-in-a-row at the bottom to let the user see which image is being displayed currently, and move to a previous or next image by clicking on the corresponding circle if they so desire."

(As for as I know) the above particular text isn't actually from the patent - but I'm sure it could have been. If it is from the patent, I claim fair use for reproducing it. Are patent documents that are on file.. wherever they are on file.. considered public domain in and of themselves? (Insert infinite regress paradox here)

And yes, I know this isn't the place to discuss general issues. Jimw338 (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Squawk Box. 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/20050525014837/http://spaces.msn.com/members/squawkblog/ to http://spaces.msn.com/members/squawkblog

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)