Talk:CTV Life Channel

Merger Discussion
I would like to propose a merger between two articles - M3 (Canadian TV channel) merged within Gusto (TV channel). Background info for readers - Knight Enterprises launched a channel Gusto TV in 2013. Bell Media owned a music channel called M3 that was launched under a previous name MuchMoreMusic back in 1998. Knight Enterprises sold the Gusto brand in Canada only to Bell Media. Bell rebranded their M3 channel and named it Gusto and Gusto TV was shut down. My rationale for the merger is that M3 and Gusto (not to be confused with Gusto TV - the previous incarnation of the Gusto TV brand owned by Knight Enterprises) are the same channel because it was a rebrand. M3 did not shut down, it simply changed its name and programming focus; therefore, to keep in line with all other Canadian TV channel articles, the M3 article should continue on under the Gusto (TV channel) article. This is common practice for Canadian channel articles and some examples are as follows: Movieola article was moved to Rewind (TV channel) when it rebranded, MuchLoud article was moved to Stingray Loud when it rebranded, Drive-In Classics was moved when it rebranded as Sundance Channel (Canada), SexTV: The Channel article was moved to W Movies and then was moved again to Cooking Channel (Canada) when it rebranded twice, Life Network article was moved when it rebranded as Slice (TV channel), and the examples could go on and on. The currents for M3 and Gusto suggest M3 was shut down and replaced with Gusto which is incorrect. I believe the correct method should be to move M3 to Gusto (TV channel) and create another article for the Gusto TV that will focus on the Gusto channel that was shut down.musimax. (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of struggling to know what the right way is to handle this situation. Besides its Knight Enterprises ownership and launch date and the Beckta kitchen thing, there's not really that much else to say about Old-Gusto that would be otherwise different from New-Gusto — its programming focus, and generally speaking most of its programming schedule, continued as is on New-Gusto, and even the basic branding identity (logo, etc.) didn't really change either. Legally it's more complicated than this, given that M3 had basic cable distribution rights and Old-Gusto didn't — meaning that really what Bell Media did was to piggyback Gusto onto M3's license because Gusto, as a channel that was licensed after 2011, could never have gotten Category A rights otherwise — but from a viewer perspective one could argue that in actual effect, M3 simply shut down entirely and is now the "defunct" entity, while Old-Gusto just continued effectively unchanged apart from a category bump, and thus New-Gusto is really Old-Gusto rather than Old-M3. Which means that I'm not yet sure quite what the best way is for us to handle this particular case, because it's a significantly different situation from most conventional rebrandings. I'm going to need some time to think about this. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would argue that this may be a little bit more clear-cut than many may think. Technically speaking, both the old and new Gustos didn't even use the same, so it really is two different channels. The old Gusto was called Gusto TV and the new Gusto is simply called Gusto (both used different logos too). It's a slight difference, but its a clear distinction, it's not as if both were named exactly the same. Also, the current Gusto article is basically what the article Gusto TV (old Gusto) should look like, while the merged M3/Gusto article would be a continuation of the M3 article with expanded content on its current incarnation. And both the old and new Gusto articles wouldn't be a duplication of content either, because for the most part, the current Gusto article would stay much the same as it is currently under the Gusto TV article, while the Gusto (TV channel) article would only provide a brief summary on the relationship/sale of the Gusto brand. musimax. (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The CRTC has symbolically removed the genre protection rules/restrictions from all specialty channels, meaning that such major changes in scope can now occur with little scrutiny. This is a type of transaction I have never seen in Canadian broadcasting before (though I've seen U.S. broadcasters do something very similar with broadcast TV stations; i.e. buy just the programming/intellectual property/studios, move the signal under a subchannel/multiplex of an existing license they already own, and leave the old station to rot in the FCC's filing cabinet). Given the special circumstance, I oppose this proposal, as Gusto has a pre-existing history, and M3's article is too substantial on covering its era that a music channel that talking about how it is now a cooking channel would be very astonishing. Basically, Bell did it this way so that A. they would not have to go through CRTC scrutiny (as they did not technically acquire any CRTC licensed undertaking; they only bought the fruit and not its peel.) and B. so they could re-launch it as a historically basic cable network, as was mentioned. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that it may be "astonishing" to move from an article about a music channel to a cooking channel has little relevance to the decision about whether it should be merged or not. It is not Wikipedia's concern to manipulate or censor articles so that the content isn't jarring, Wikipedia's role is to provide factual content on articles and this is a fact that both M3 and the current Gusto are the same channel. Despite what Bell's intentions were (which is only speculation on ViperSnake151's part), the fact is that both are the same channel. Canadian channels have gone through vastly different rebrands on a number of occasions and their articles continued as one - i.e., Discovery World Canada (wildlife and natural history) rebranded as Discovery Velocity (cars), Casino and Gaming Television (casino games and mostly poker) rebranded to Game TV (movies and game shows), BiteTV (originally short form content, then comedy programming) when it rebranded Makeful (diy), talktv (general interest talk shows) when it rebranded as MTV (reality TV for teens). musimax. (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is also an issue that has happened before in Canadian TV history - it has happened several times in the ethnic channel category. MEGA Cosmos was once owned by Ethnic Channels Group and then the rights were won by OTN and they launched their own channel and two separate articles exist. Also, KBS World - this channel was originally launched by Seabridge Media and then when it shut down, almost, if not, immediately, All TV Inc. launched their owned KBS World to replace it. So there is precedent here to follow. musimax. (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not too sure how to handle this either. I don't think merging the two articles is the appropriate measure. The original Gusto TV had its own Cat B license, I don't see why two separate channels should be merged into one. With that logic we might as well merge E! (Canadian TV system) and E! (Canadian TV channel) into one article. I don't think this is a straight forward rebrand of M3. I think it's just simpler to leave things as they are as it will create less confusion, but mainly because of the already pre-existing Gusto TV. Technically speaking, if anything, Gusto (TV channel) should be moved back to Gusto TV and then move M3 (Canadian TV channel) to Gusto (TV channel). Thus keeping the articles separate.

I agree with ViperSnake151 and what Bearcat has said so far. While we're discussing this, I might as well mention Cartoon Network (Canada). It now operates under Teletoon Retro's Cat B license. It's the exact same thing (with the exception it was done within one company). Again, pre-existing service with virtually no changes in scheduling. Did the channel placement even change when the license(s) were swapped? Doesn't appear to be the case for Cartoon Network. I think those channels should be left alone as well. Northwest (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On my provider, it did move to Teletoon Retro's allotments after this "transition" (a few providers put the new Disney Channel (Canada) there instead). But we lost Teletoon Retro no matter how you slice it (let's not forget that the French version's license now holds the French version of Disney Channel). The article adequetely explains what happened, though. ViperSnake151   Talk  15:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Northwest - I think you touched on what I am suggesting here - so I think you agree with me and what I'm proposing - what I'm suggesting is that the info in Gusto (TV channel) be moved back into Gusto TV (with some revisions of course) and that article focus on Knight's Gusto TV; while we move M3 to Gusto (TV channel) so the history of M3 is contained in the new Gusto article because it's the same channel. musimax. (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In what way is M3 the same channel as Gusto, apart from a public relations fiction designed to sneak Gusto up from Category B to Category A, when the programming and branding on Bell-Media-Gusto are fundamentally the same as the programming and branding on Knight-Enterprises-Gusto? (The dropping of "TV" from the channel's name is not enough to make "Gusto TV" and "Gusto" two different things — note, for example, that we do not have two separate articles about Citytv and City just because of a minor branding adjustment. And we didn't merge CKXT-DT with Sun News Network just because Quebecor used the CKXT license to back-door Sun News into must-carry status on Toronto basic cable either, because CKXT's history prior to that point didn't belong there.) As I already noted, what fundamentally happened is that M3 shut down and Gusto just inherited its Category A status because of a legal sleight-of-hand of no genuine practical significance beyond getting better distribution for Gusto, and then continued its operations virtually unchanged otherwise. It does not make the old iteration of Gusto a different channel that needs a separate article from the new iteration of Gusto — it does not mean that New-Gusto retains the past history of M3 but not the past history of Old-Gusto.
 * There's simply no substantive basis for Old-Gusto to have a separate article from New-Gusto just because of the dropping of a dinky and inconsequential "TV" suffix from its name, when virtually everything else about it is the same as it was before. Had Bell taken the Gusto brand to create a channel which was different from the former iteration of Gusto in any significant way — for example, if Bell had found a way to keep at least a pinch of VH1 in the format instead of just continuing the exact same was-this-really-necessary Food Network/HGTV hybrid that Gusto already was and still is — then there might be a case for separate articles, and if Gusto was a new brand that Bell Media had created out of whole cloth instead of buying from another company, then we would already have just moved M3's article wholesale. But as things actually stand, the difference between Old-Gusto and New-Gusto is profoundly trivial compared to the difference between Gusto and M3 — which means that the articles are already located at the correct point of distinction between the two topics. The correct splitpoint here is "music channel vs. cooking channel", not "Bell Media vs. Knight Enterprises". Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference between Citytv and City is that its the same channel, just rebranded. Of course there would not be two articles for that and my argument is in no way to suggest having seperate articles for the same channel. But that's in contrast with the old and new Gusto - they are different channels and need their own articles. I also wouldn't have merged CKXT and Sun News Network and I also wouldn't have merged E! (former CH system) with the E! channel now in Canada because in both instances they are different channels. You seem to be making my point for me. Those 2 examples are different channels and have different articles. But for some reason here with the two Gustos, we want to keep them in one article? There is so many exmaples of precedent to look at here - the 2 MTVs, the 2 E!s, the 2 Super Channels, the 2 MEGA Cosmos, the 2 MTV2s, etc. Why is this one so different? The precedent is there to merge them (M3 with Gusto (TV channel) and then have a seperate article for Gusto TV. The Cartoon Network and Teletoon Retro example was discussed earlier - the difference why I support keeping them separate and why M3 and Gusto should be merged is that Cartoon Network was a literal takeover of the same brand - there was literally no change whatsoever - the logo, website, graphics, programming, all stayed the same. It was also a shift from within one company and both use a cat b licence so their licence requirements were the same other than the nature of service which is now a moot point. M3 and Gusto are different. However minor it may be, the name was changed from Gusto TV to Gusto, the logo changed, the website changed, and there was a change in programming - MasterChef Canada, Marilyn Dennis Show, etc. were added. Let's say we forget all of that, the fact of the matter is is that it's the same channel. Old Gusto shut down and used a cat b licence and M3 lives on as Gusto and Gusto now uses M3's licence. And although the rules are now changing where they are now coming to a level playing field - M3's condition of licence and a cat B is/was very different. Keeping the old and new Gusto as one article makes the suggestion that they are one and the same which isn't true. Unlike the US where rebrands mean nothing, here in Canada we have a licencing system and strict rules to follow and we can track the history of a service based on what licence was used. And clearly from this case, M3 and Gusto are the same and by separating the articles, it's a complete about face to what the norm is for other Canadian channels on Wikipedia. Whena  channel rebrands, the article continues as one to maintain a consistent history of that channel. When Allarco bought the rights to the Super Channel brand from Corus - we didn't add the complete history of the former Super Channel to the new Super Channel article and say the channel launched in 1983, then was shut down in the 80s/2001 and then got revived again in 2007 - even though by definition of the comments here it's technically the same channel (same name, same type of programming, both the same type of Pay-TV channel, both are intellectual property that was moved from one owner to another, etc.). When MTV launched in Canada in 2001 under Craig Media and rebranded when it was bought by CHUM, then Bell bought the rights to MTV and rebranded talktv as MTV in 2006, we didn't continue the new MTV article and make assumptions that the new MTV is a continuation of the old MTV that launched in 2001. So why do it in this instance? Let me ask the group who have or will comment here - if lets say Rogers decided to rebrand Sportsnet One and call it NHL Network, would we revive the NHL Network (Canada) article and continue on from there as if its the same channel? I doubt it. Instead we'd do what we did in the Super Channel and MTV examples - we'd give a brief intro and acknowledge the original brand when it existed, but the new brand is certainly a different channel. That's what we did in other examples and I think what we should do here. musimax. (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In what way, besides "because you say so", are Knight-Enterprises-Gusto and Bell-Media-Gusto two different channels exactly? Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * From a content standpoint (besides the addition of a few Bell-produced programs, i.e. our version of MasterChef, the channels aren't very different. However, when you dig into the legal technicalities, Bell did not technically acquire the channel (as you must have CRTC approval in order to acquire a broadcast undertaking, which is also subject to a tangible benefits mandate), they only acquired the intellectual property of the channel and programming rights, and sacrificed a basic cable-tier channel formerly known as MuchMoreMusic (by then, they had aired much less music, and much more Mentalist) to effectively re-launch the network in channel allotments with much wider carriage. The old, Category B Gusto, was effectively shut down at the same time, and succeeded by this new version. Basically, Bell acquired the channel in such a way that it did not require government approval, because no CRTC license was actually transferred. ViperSnake151   Talk  06:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There should be two Gusto articles (the former and the current) if that's what Bell did. Northwest (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I still disagree, primarily because this was an acquisition, except structured in an unusual fashion in order to dodge regulatory scrutiny (which would have immensely slowed things down). Like it has been noted, there is still heavy continuity between the two "versions" of the channel, and I even made sure to emphasize that on the page itself and list it as having "closed" and re-opened on September 1. ViperSnake151   Talk  14:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We cannot make assumptions in Wikipedia articles as to what Bell's reasoning was when it decided to purchase the brand rather than the channel outright. You may be right, but we can't guess here, we need facts and there is no written facts out there that specify the exact reason why they did what they did. Precedent exists here that channel rebrands continue as one article, and I still believe that the best case scenario here is that M3 and Gusto (TV channel) merge as one article to follow the history of MMM --> MuchMore --> M3 --> now Gusto. Gusto TV has its own history and it can be noted in its own article. We create articles for channels with the same brand and for the most part, the same programming when they launch in different countries, because they are different channels, so it seems to make sense that the same be done with different channels in the same country. There use to be two Disney Junior brands in Canada at the same time - one English and one French - both used the same logo, owned by the same company, I'm guessing both aired pretty much the exact same shows just in different languages, and we kept two articles in that case, so why not here? Same goes for both Teletoons - heck they even use the same licence, and yet they exist as two articles. After these examples and the numerous others mentioned here in this discussion, I see no substantial difference that makes this situation so unique that it deserves to defy the precedent that's been made numerous times before in other articles. musimax. (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Our articles are organized for the benefit of readers, not for the benefit of corporate lawyers. The legal technicalities of how Bell Media structured the transaction aren't what determines how we should structure our articles — the practical effects of the situation are much more important for our purposes. The existing structure, and the existing titles, are a much better reflection of the practicalities of the matter than moving M3's article to this title and then reinstituting a separate article about "Gusto under its prior owner as a separate topic from Gusto under its current owner" would be — the legal chicaneries of the business transaction are far less important to the end reader than the questions of branding and programming continuity.
 * Basically, the valid options here would be (a) leave the articles where they are, or (b) merge the two articles into the current title but maintain just one article overall. The situation does not, however, lend itself to the notion that "Gusto before takeover" and "Gusto after takeover" are two separate article topics — continuity of branding and programming is far more important than continuity of licensing category when it comes to a situation like this. If we want to maintain separate articles, then the brand identity trumps the legal technicalities as the splitpoint — if a purely legal technicality really requires the entire history of MuchMoreMusic→M3 to be found at this title, then there's not a valid or substantive basis to spin the prior iteration of Gusto off as a separate article from that. Prior to this the channel really wasn't well-known enough, or notable enough for much more than "it can be sourced as existing", to warrant a standalone article separate from the Bell Media iteration of the same thing — if we're moving M3 to this title, then "Gusto while owned by Knight Enterprises" is at best a subsection within that article and not a separate article topic.
 * If it's really that important to move M3 to this title, then the Knight Enterprises version of the channel warrants no more than a few sentences in a merged article — but if it's more important that they maintain separate articles, then the correct splitpoint for those articles is "M3 as M3" vs. "Gusto regardless of ownership", not "Bell Media M3→Gusto" vs. "Knight Enterprises Gusto". If we want two articles, then brand identity and programming trump ownership and licensing class as the point of distinction between the two topics. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What one may think is beneficial to the readers may be different to what someone else may think is beneficial to readers. I lean towards maintaining a distinction between two different channels (old and new Gusto) and keeping the history of M3 well within the new Gusto article because as was described above, they are the same channel. Going from upwards of probably 100 articles on Canadian cable channels, many many of whom have rebranded and their articles continuing on through each rebrand, and then all of a sudden, this one exception go in a completely different direction, I don't think is beneficial to readers once they've come to expect a template regarding these channel articles. Why not merge Movie Central with Super Channel then since its just a continuation of the Super Channel brand, or merge the two E! channels we had in Canada at one time, or merge MTV2 with MTV in Canada then since both were MTV channels at one time? To go off on a limb with one exception is not beneficial to readers in my opinion. musimax. (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If we're to leave things as they are, there would be numerous articles that would need to be restructured to fit the brand format. At this point, it seems restructuring those articles would do more harm than good (not to mention the work involved). Maybe there should be a compromise if this can't be agreed upon. Leave M3 as is, but split the Gusto article as they are separate entities. Ignoring the issue at hand, is it unanimously agreed upon that M3 was likely rebranded and not shut down? Northwest (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, where I'm disagreeing with you is the idea that New-Gusto is more the same channel as M3 than it is the same channel as Old-Gusto. That's only true if you give a legal technicality precedence over continuity of branding and programming. And every one of the examples you cited in that comment is not comparable to this for one reason or another:
 * The original SuperChannel that became MovieCentral is covered as part of Movie Central rather than as a standalone article — Super Channel (Canada) is not about that, but about the completely unrelated new Super Channel which was established many years after the old SuperChannel was rebranded as Movie Central. The topic covered by that article was neither a continuation of anything that existed before it, nor an old name for something that operates under a different name today — it's a thing that has always only ever been called Super Channel, and still is today.
 * MTV vs. MTV2 is a situation where both channels continued to operate after the branding shift — no discussion or debate had to be held about where the splitpoint between the topics should be, because both topics were movable to new titles and nobody had to debate where the splitpoint was.
 * E!-the-terrestrial network and E!-the-former-Star! are also in no way the same thing as each other — they both carried very distinct histories (CH vs. Star), had different programming strategies (even though it was mostly US-E! in daytime, for example, network-E! did still pick up some NBC/CBS/ABC/Fox shows in prime time, while Star-E! does not), and while network-E! did technically dissolve as an entity, all but one of the stations that were affiliated with it do still exist today as either independents or affiliates of other networks (so they haven't muddled together into one thing either.) There would simply be no basis for merging them, because they were never the same thing as each other in any remotely significant way.
 * What we have here, however, is a situation that's completely unlike any of those. Bell Media bought a small, little-distributed cable startup and piggybacked it onto the Category A license of a channel whose existing programming they wanted to discontinue — meaning that Gusto as it exists today is simultaneously "the same channel" as two formerly-different channels: one (Gusto) by the substance of what the channel actually is, and the other (M3) only because of the legal technicality that Bell Media found a loophole around having to go through the conventional CRTC application process. But if they had gone through the conventional application process, then it would be more straightforward that New-Gusto would be Old-Gusto while M3 would be just dead, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. And even having done it the sneaky loopholey way they did it, the practical effect is the same in the end as if they had done it the normal way, because New-Gusto's programming and branding are the same as Old-Gusto, and it's the same channel as M3 only by virtue of an obscure legal instrument of insider baseball. To say that New-Gusto is fundamentally the same channel as M3 and not the same channel as Old-Gusto is to say that the legal technicality is more important than the brand continuity in this situation — but the brand continuity is the more important consideration for our purposes. They're two different topics at the M3 vs. Gusto point of differentiation, not at the Bell Media vs. Knight Enterprises point of differentiation, because the important distinction between the two topics is at the branding and programming level and not at the legal chicaneries of an ownership transfer.
 * The most comparable past situation to this, rather, is CTV Television Network vs. Baton Broadcasting. Legally speaking, CTV as it exists today is not one continuous entity that has existed since 1961 — it's technically two different entities, one defunct corporation which existed only from 1961 to 1997, and a different corporation (formerly called Baton Broadcasting) which took over the CTV name when the first entity dissolved. So if we were being legalese about it in the way that's being requested here, then the article at CTV Television Network would be the network's post-1997 history fused with the history of Baton, and the network's pre-1997 history would be a separate article called "CTV Television Network (1961-1997)" or "CTV Television Network (defunct)". But that's not the best way for us to organize our articles — regardless of the legal technicalities of the situation, our needs are best served by treating CTV as the continuous topic and Baton as the breakout, rather than by splitting CTV into two distinct topics at the 1997 restructuring and then merging the current version with Baton.
 * Or, alternatively, consider the case of CHOI-FM's ownership transfer from Genex to RNC Media in 2006: Genex had been forced to shut the station down entirely, so RNC was issued a new license to open a new station on the same frequency. So technically the Genex and RNC iterations of CHOI are two different stations rather than one continuous one — but practically speaking, there's no benefit to us actually maintaining two separate articles about what's fundamentally the same radio station just because of the legal technicality of how the transfer of ownership was conducted.
 * Basically, we have to evaluate each individual situation according to its own individual circumstances, rather than some blanket rule that doesn't always fit the data. And the circumstances in this case are best handled with the existing article titles. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Split?
I Don't Know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicVivo (talk • contribs) 20:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't need to split a television channel's article up into two separate articles just because it rebrands — if the programming focus remains the same before and after the rebranding, such that it's essentially a continuous topic that just changed its name, then we keep one article rather than splitting it up into two. There are occasionally more complicated circumstances where there's potentially a stronger case for two separate articles, but this isn't one of them. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)