Talk:Disney XD (British and Irish TV channel)/Archive 1

Did Mario Bros Air on Fox Kids?
I know for a fact that Mario Bros did not air on Jetix, but I Can't remember worth a damn if it aired on Fox Kids. Did someone confuse it for TCC airing of the show?--Conan-san 21:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Though they've never shown it, Jetix do have the rights to Super Mario Bros Super Show, it's been released on DVD under the Jetix banner. Digifiend 12:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Second message, true. Now, about the "I know for fact..." bit, Proof or get out. --The Track Master 12:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation
I removed a section on there from this edit which seemed to be a direct copy of a PR Newswire press release. Sonic 19:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Dennis and Gnasher
No need to say Beano's Dennis and Gnasher, as there's no Gnasher in the US version of Dennis the Menace. If it said Dennis the Menace, then Beano's would be needed. However, Jetix does have the rights to the US version, they've just never shown it, but they have released it on DVD. Digifiend 12:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mystic Force
I reckon Power Rangers Mystic Force will launch at October half term, several seasons have launched at that time of year. GMTV will be happy with its shorter run this year, they haven't completed a season since Lost Galaxy! Digifiend 12:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ship to Shore
I don't remember Ship to Shore being on Fox Kids, and since the last series was in 1996, it had to be either Nickelodeon, Sky One, or a terrestrial channel, not Fox Kids, which broadcast it. Digifiend 11:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It was on Jetix. -The Track Master 20:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Black Hole High no longer showing?
Black Hole High does not appear to be on Jetix AT ALL anymore. It was on everyday at 7.00/7.30 (I'm not sure which) but now 'Naruto' and 'Galatik Football' show instead. Why on earth has Black Hole High completely disappeared from the lineup? I did watch it every day or so, but since Monday 4th September 2006 it doesn't appear to be there anymore. Does anyone know what is going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baberlp (talk • contribs) 5 September 2006
 * Black Hole High is still showing on Jetix in the UK. Hmr 1:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Logos
The old logos need fixing, two of them have disappeared! Digifiend 12:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Digimon Frontier, Wait, what?
I'm calling shinanigins on Digimon Frountier (series 4) airing during october 2007. I was aware that Digmon Tamers (series 3) was being aired during the weekdays but Frountier has not aired during that slot. --Conan-san (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * CITV didn't show it either, meaning Frontier still hasn't been shown in the UK. Let alone the fifth series. Digifiend (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Jetix dvds
hi all, just want you opinion on whether we should put a section on the dvd that are gettign released directly from jetix? if the opinion is yes can someone adda section as i dnt know hwo to do it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Jetix DVD releases and currently airing shows
I dont think the Jetix DVD brand belongs here, since this is a page that deals almost exclusively with the TV channel. SnoopsWarner (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jetix.png
The image Image:Jetix.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits
We dont need to go into detail regarding Naruto cuts. We dont need to list the things that we DONT know about what MAY happen in the future. We DONT need a seperate section for rebranding, since the whole saga is covered in the history section.

SnoopsWarner (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole article needs cleaNED UP as per wp:mos and to comply with british tv regulation i will in the near future bring some suggestiong to the project to get all the uk channels cleaned up.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Logo gallery?
OK, I know you don't like unfree images, but removing the history of Jetix UK logos was not a good idea... And it IS going to be Disney XD soon, so that logo would be needed as well. The point was to visualize the history of this channel, and now there is only text. Really, does an article have to contain JUST the current logo? --Mégara (Мегъра) - D. G. Mavrov (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No it can contain old images but someone has been tagging no free images to get deleted even if the rationalatily has bene used correctly you need ot ifnd he person who tagged the logos in the first place tosee why they did it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article can contain historical logos if the logos themselves are of some significance. Do you believe they are? J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Fox Kids logo is needed as it shows the network name change from Fox Kids to Jetix. Powergate92   Talk  17:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The fox kids and jetix ones are required, i aint sure they are all needed but wher ehte logo change signfactely it is required i havent reviewed them myself to say the exact ones that are needed to stay-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So if these logos aren’t ‘allowed’, then please somebody tell me why we are allowed to keep the ‘current’ one? If the old ones aren’t necessary then surely we must go and remove all the current ones as well as these aren’t conforming either! I always thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to be a source of useful information, which included images. The pages on TV channels should include ALL the logos where available as they are part of the channels history/identity. Many pages on Wikipedia also include former logos, so why should the TV channel pages be targeted and also, this never seemed a ‘problem’ before, so why is it now? Skytvfreak (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been deemed that the current logo is useful for the infobox as it shows how the network presents itself, reassures the reader they have reached the correct page, and everything it says in the standard rationale. This "automatic entitlement" that practically exists certainly does not extend to historical logos. Powergate, we do not need a non-free image to show a name change. That can be (and is) said in text alone. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * J Milburn is correct. Galleries of non-free images are not permitted. Non-free media must be accompanied by critical commentary. A limited amount of old logos might be appropriate when, and only when, there is text to justify the inclusion. The JPS talk to me  13:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes galleries of non free images ar enot allowed, however this is logos of the old rebranded channels etc and hwo the lgos evolued over time, timeline of history is a important part of wikipedia, if the iamges are not been used correctly or the rationalion is wrong then say that do not jsut delete because that the easy options, a lot of wikipedian jsut take the easy option instead of tryign to fix the rpoblem. before you think i think they all should be ther ei dnt but the original fox kids one and jetix ones need ot be there as a way of showing time, i do not have time jsut now to go through this my wife is expecting any day so my time is limited. This discussion needs to go to the british tv project as this is a wider issue than jsut on jetix article-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, there are a lot of logos that need to be removed. It's not a matter of taking the "easy option" or the "hard option"- I'm willing to guess that in the vast majority of cases, these logos should not be used at all. Naturally, if certain logos are required, they should be added back to the article, but I recommend that it is discussed here first- are these logos here in any way significant? J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I said this to you before and I will say it again, just look at the rationale on the logo to see how it is significant as the rationale says "The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the brand, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the brand, and illustrate the nature of the brand in a way that words alone could not convey." Powergate92   Talk  18:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I think we should discuss this at Media copyright questions. Powergate92   Talk  18:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Powergate, that rationale only really applies to the current logo, placed prominently at the top of the article. Not historical logos hidden away at the bottom of the article. As I have said- there is, to a certain, extent, an "automatic entitlement" to have the current logo- this does not extend to historical logos. J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No the rationale that is for the current logo says "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey." and where doe's it say "this does not extend to historical logos"? Powergate92   Talk  19:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So you feel that showing a historical logo helps to "reassure the reader that they have reached the correct article"? The logo fur is intended for logos placed at the head of the article, any other use really is abuse of the template. As there is no "automatic allowance", you're going to have to provide custom rationales, rather than template ones, and those rationales are going to need to explain exactly what that particular image is adding. No vague statements about how historical logos are good- an explanation of what that image adds to this article. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As i said this is a major issue that cover many articles, it not a case of what ti adds for this article but all tv channel article as there the same, i think takign it to the project and getting a consesus on what is best and how to produce the rationale would be the best way forward ratehr than jsut dealign with this article on it own, if the project and yourselfs can get a consesus then ti will be able ot be kept in the project page of how to deal with these problems on ever tv channel article-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to attract more editors to the discussion, I would be tempted going straight to WikiProject Television, as the British TV channels Project doesn't exactly seem like Kings Cross.  The JPS talk to me  20:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where doe's it say "The logo fur is intended for logos placed at the head of the article"? As Noname2 said at Media copyright questions "Please explain how that rationale doesn't accurately describe how the image is used. Yes the same rationale might be used on other images, but that's because those images are being used in the same way." Powergate92   Talk  01:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are not being used in the same way. The logo fur was created to cover the many, many logos we use to place in infoboxes/article headers- the current, primary logo of the subject of the article. You really are not going to get anywhere arguing that the template justifies the use of the logo in any and every situation. J Milburn (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again where doe's it say "The logo fur was created to cover the many, many logos we use to place in infoboxes/article headers- the current, primary logo of the subject of the article"? I am not "arguing that the template justifies the use of the logo in any and every situation" I am arguing that the brand part of the template justifies the use of brand logos like the Fox Kids logo. Powergate92   Talk  00:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And again I think we should discuss this at Media copyright questions. Powergate92   Talk  01:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly alarmed that you need a quote for that. The template documentation is rather vague, but it does quite clearly state that "This template is optimized for logos of brands/organizations used in the article about that brand/organization.". It also points to WP:LOGO, which stresses the importance of the NFCC and talks about using logos responsibly. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: move reverted 81.111.114.131 (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Fox Kids ON fox → Disney XD (UK & Ireland) — Vandalism move, move back to original article name.  [[ axg ◉  talk   ]] 16:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure what is going on here. The charge of vandalism may be a bit over the top IMO. The article is now at Fox Kids UK and Ireland, which seems to be a previous official name and may still be the common name, and Fox Kids ON Fox has been speedied. Can anyone provide a case for the proposed move to Disney XD (UK & Ireland), based on WP:NC? Andrewa (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What other reason that the channel is called disney xd????? some person decided they wanted to name it fox kids fox kids is dead-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think someone needs to review the page history, which should be revelatory. The possibility that someone has misunderstood something is just too great a stretch to be credible.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just trying to help. There seems to be quite a lot going on, both with the various name, content and ownership changes and with various contributors' opinions as to the article name. Some thought should go into the structure of the various articles that describe the many entities, past and present, which this article either currently describes or could possibly include. Splits or merges may need to be be considered. A case for this rename in terms of the Article Naming Conventions, rather than on the official name of the moment, would be a good start. Andrewa (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute - so, some vandal decides to rewrite an article with a boatload of falsehoods, then moves the article to a title that coincides with these falsehoods, and apparently we have to make a justifiable case for undoing it? Last time I checked, contentious moves were summarily reversible.  Revert the move, and the user that wants the article at the current title can start an RM for it.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a reason for moving it back, but not nearly so persuasive as one based on WP:NC. Suggest you or someone else provide a link to the contentious and undiscussed move or moves in question. Yes, now that we've come to WP:RM, it's appropriate to consider WP:NC and make a case in terms of that. No, it's not mandatory to do it, but if these alleged vandals persist, it will make it a lot easier to deal with them in future if we do. Andrewa (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less about NC at this point. Someone has engaged in apparent vandalism, and it should be reverted.  The usual rule is that contentious moves are reverted, and the burden is then on the person that moved it to justify moving it back.  It absolutely is not incumbent upon the rest of us to come up with a good reason for undoing it, especially in a case of such blatant vandalism as is evidenced in the article history.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree with most of this. IMO we've long gone past the point where a quick revert would be helpful. Let's move on. Andrewa (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree with this assessment. There may be some mileage in discussing whether there should be multiple articles and what their scope should be, but we should not let disruption get in the way of this. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As noted below, the move has been done by another admin, who will I assume also close this move discussion. So let's move on. Andrewa (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * But another admin has done it. Oh well. Andrewa (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * all of which has been set by the projects for years all aarticles regarding tv channesl int eh uk follow a rule if they rename it moves to the current name and old names are meantioned in the article which it is done it is just some fanboy who loves fox kids wanitng the name wrong since they dislike disney xd-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 07:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I just point out that red link should be this article (Fox Kids UK and Ireland), however moved it to the current name (Fox Kids UK and Ireland) after I put the template here, thus breaking the template. --   [[ axg  ◉  talk   ]] 09:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's another reason for moving it back, but the more compelling reasons either way will be based on WP:NC. Andrewa (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If this rule is documented anywhere, a link to it would be appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Disney XD has been the name for some years and is likely to be the current common name. Andrewa (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see why there is not room for two articles. The Disney XD does not override the history of the previous channel that was in its place. In fact it should not particularly if it is more than just a rebranding, the previous channel should still have its own page. Disney does not buy encyclopedic pages when they take over a channel. Polargeo (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Good points IMO. I'm personally skeptical that there will be enough material for a split any time soon, but on the other hand there's plenty of verifiable and encyclopedic material out there if anyone wants to access it. The Google news archive might be a good place to start, see and . No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * this was decided at porject level due to the fact a lot of channels rebrand but the former page would be so small it get deleted it best ot jsut detail the channel shistory in the current name format as it the same channel jsu ta new name-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 09:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! Could you provide a link to this discussion, please? Andrewa (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If i have time ill dig it up im pretty much inactive due to life commintments i think axg is project member and they might be bale to dig it otu for oyu if not oyu can go to the british tv porject and you will find it in there osmewhere-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be good. You know what you're looking for and I don't, so I'm not about to spend time looking for this discussion. If we don't have a link to it then at the risk of re-inventing the wheel we just have to proceed as though it never existed. Sorry. Andrewa (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article scope
Some points were raised in the move discussion about what the scope of this article should be, and whether a separate article for the historical channels are needed. Discuss. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And again, links to previous discussions referred to above would be helpful, so we don't go re-inventing the wheel here. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Rebrand?
Jetix lived for 4 years, Disney XD is soon on its fifth year. Perhaps a rebrand will happen soon? What do you think? TDFan2006 (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I think WP:NOT and WP:CRYSTAL. --  axg //  ✉  ]] ''' 20:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We'll, I think WP:IAMJUSTASKINGFORYOURTHOUGHT.TDFan2006 (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT. 117Avenue (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion
Oppose, what at the reason for this page being deleted? nothing has been done to improve it, the page which would replace this would be NO better. The only reason this page is here is because of poor editing from years ago. The page used to have proper history of ALL history of the UK operations since 96 but it got whitewashed etc and we have ended up with a rather useless page which people who did have knowledge, where kicked out. --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Does this channel even still actually exist?
Since somewhere in 2019, or possibly 2018, the channel went through a few major changes, all promos became textless, all of the next bumpers were replaced with more generic textless versions (not a rebrand), and a few other similar changes. The schedule may have changed too. I'm not entirely convinced Disney XD UK still exists or has even existed for a while, I think what is currently known as "Disney XD UK" is actually a pan-european version that has replaced the UK feed. TolerableDruid6 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)