Talk:GMA Network (company)

GMA Network Inc. as 'the company'
You can edit this Wikipage as long as information regarding the company should belong here and articles about the broadcast/television station must go to GMA Network. Thanks. Webwires (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work on circumventing our discussion. Wherever that is now. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 02:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, explain why please...
If you are referring to Item No. 1 under NOT, I guess you misunderstood it. Item No. 1 clearly says that Wikipedia is not a directory of information on inaccurate topics. It does not point that a list of names associated with or significantly contributed to the list of topic should be removed. Kindly check:
 * Discovery Communications
 * CNN
 * Time Warner
 * British Broadcasting Corporation
 * British Broadcasting Company

It’s been an excessive action for others to misinterpret the guidelines in general. A Wikipedia standard is plain and simple. Don’t construe it to be more complicated to others. Webwires (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't do mistakes if it's done elsewhere. There's no stare decisis here. Either its transformed into prose or it's left out. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 09:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mistake? So “we” (refers to a group of Wikipedians, who? including you?) means the entries mentioned above oversighted by every Wikipedian? And since “we” (the group) cited for themselves it’s a “mistake,” “we” (the group) did nothing to correct it? So if it is not fit in my area or comfort zone I will leave it, as it is even the entries are inaccurately or mistakenly entered? As far as I’m concerned with regards with WP:NOT, it is so basic to comprehend and we don’t need to inflate it to be more complex to others. Webwires (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "We" includes you; like what was said, if other articles don't do it, it doesn't follow it should be followed here. Why do you insist on adding a directory? Can't you make up prose? Let's face it, it is a directory, considering more than half of those people don't have articles for them; the reader won't have use for such a list: "Oh look, a list of people heading this company! Wait what now? What is 'heading' a company?".
 * Let's pick one of your examples: BBC. Under the "Executive Board" section, the reader knows what is that section for: "The Executive Board is responsible for operational management and delivery of services within a framework set by the BBC Trust, and is headed by the Director-General, Mark Thompson. The Executive Board consists of both Executive and Non-Executive directors.[29]"
 * Compare to the version that you insist in GMA: "The board of directors of GMA Network Inc. has elected a new set of officers to administer the company in October 2010." A reader will say "So... what? They're elected in October 2010? What do they do? Do they sell pancakes at the corridor? Do they own the company? Do they handle day-to-day stuff or do they delegate it to somewhat else? What?"
 * Context and prose explaning what the section is for separates a directory that is allowed under WP:NOT from one that is not allowed. Your version fails on both accounts. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 13:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, if the context of my edit is so plain and never had a chance to expand, and that’s my fault; instead of allowing the author to correct it, you decided to revert it but that’s your own prerogative. You can always tag it to expand or add supplementary information relating to the list but you never did. I will try to prose it if I have time and since it is our responsibility, I don’t need to ask anyone to do it unlike others fond of dictating. Webwires (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was against WP:NOT and I reverted it on sight. I'd reckon you've been notified of that before (that's why you probably went here) but you went along with your WP:NOT version, and other people reverted it because it fell under WP:NOT... vicious cycle, unless you do something about it, as people who were reverting won't write something up for you. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 14:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. I’m not here just to revert everything. Instead of fixing it, revert is the answer? Ok, I have a proposition to you, since you are insisting that it falls under WP:NOT, why don’t you, rather kindly correct the mistakes (you refer it a mistake) to the Wikipage mentioned above? Entries are within our scope since the rule we are disagreeing applies to all Wikipage. Then I will agree to you and rest my case. By the way, the people you are referring don’t even know the full context of the rule. Creating Wikipage just for the heck of it and mostly tagged “does not cite any references or sources”; adding entries that does not add merit. Do you want me to conform such? Thanks man. Webwires (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, your version could've been restored if you did something about it instead of a) arguing, b) justifying that it did not fall under WP:NOT, c) pointing out that it is erroneous to revert an edit that introduced WP:NOT when it isn't. I realized you were not given a proper welcome on your user talk page, which probably means you may not know these "wikipages" so let me do the honor for you, then read what is prescribed on the welcome message, then probably do something with your version instead of doing (a), (b) and (c). – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 15:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As what I’ve said, since you are insisting entries falls under WP:NOT, then correct it. I will standby your edit with no hesitation. If you can correct the oversight here that fast why not do it also elsewhere. I’m not the one asserting it. You’re right, I’m arguing that’s why we are here in the first place, to converse in a civil way. You’re right also, I’m justifying it because my interpretation, it does not fall under WP:NOT. You’re right again, I’m pointing because I understood the rule plain and simple. Been there, done that. Thanks. Webwires (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you do it? If you like it that bad you can whip up something, instead of doing (a), (b) and (c). In fact, instead of replying to me, write something on the article page that includes your version that won't make it violate WP:NOT. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 16:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you are asking me to do it instead of you? What for? I’m not the one who made those allegations, your so-called “mistakes”. Are you afraid that you might find someone who would correct you and be embarrassment because you have so many barnstar awards that might comprise compromise your integrity? I don’t get the point why you keep on diverting the argument when in fact it is so simple. I have said it... I WILL ONLY AGREE to you when you corrected those mistakes, mistakes that you claimed. That I will support your actions with no hesitation. You think it’s a mistake then correct it by yourself. And again, don’t ask someone or let people do it for you since you have already said it to me before. I don’t consider it violation of WP:NOT then why should I correct it? Now you only proven that your scope is so limited and petrified to broaden your thinking. I don't need guidance from someone who cannot stand for his own decision. Webwires (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno about you, but this discussion is rather odd; people who want their version to be added usually fix the articles themselves after someone pointed out something was wrong. Well, either that or they insist they are right and they revert to their own unamended version.
 * Anyway, it seems that you may not want to do something about this. I have something else to do here but if you insist on reverting to your unamended version that I say violates WP:NOT, although you say that it doesn't, I'd probably bring this to WP:3O and let them mediate. If you do fix it up then there'll be no further drama. It's not up to the reverter to fix the article, it's up to the "revertee" to do things. The traffic enforcer won't teach you how to drive properly when he catches you, it is up to you to learn to drive properly. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 13:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Workshop

 * Re-indent: Let's try it this way:
 * Who are they?
 * What does GMA's Board of Directors do?
 * How are they chosen?
 * In essence those are the questions that need to be answered. If we know the answers to these questions we can avoid this violating WP:NOT. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 13:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, how can someone concur with a “traffic enforcer” such as you about a “mistake” that is clearly evident in the other articles that I previously mentioned? Wouldn’t someone playing the role of a mighty “traffic enforcer” such as you have already caught something like that if it was indeed a mistake? I wonder why those numerous other “mistakes” still exist. Maybe we really should let those people you want to mediate mediate. Let me know how it turns out. I have nothing more to say. Thanks. Webwires (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you want to accomplish in this exercise? – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 16:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me answer each of your questions:
 * We are all equals -- when I screw up, point it out and I'll happily fix it up myself. This is Wiki, your edits will be edited mercilessly. Sometimes people will tell you what you should do. It's a part of Wiki-life.
 * Like I said, there's no stare decisis -- precedents -- here in Wikipedia.
 * Not all the time, I'm afraid. I rarely edit these types of articles, except for Philippine-based ones.
 * Like I said, what was done in articles do not automatically have to be done in other articles, except for WP:GA-class articles and better, which are used as models on how articles should look like, but still we should use discretion and approach each article on a case-by-case basis. The fact that people didn't do anything about it doesn't mean it is right. Women didn't vote until early in the 20th century: was it right when they did not vote before? And as illustrated in the BBC article, their cases aren't exactly similar, so they're incomparable. Now I haven't done checked out the other cited articles, so unless they're GA-class or higher we shouldn't be basing their lowly article standards on this one.
 * – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 17:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Former Networks
Why made an article about the defunct networks of GMA Network, Inc.? I'm sure it will not interests all readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollyckuhno (talk • contribs) 08:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, it is only a sub article, pointing to the main article. Webwires (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

PSEi
I removed the template of PSEi to the article of GMA Network, Inc. since it is no longer a part of the index. See the article of PSEi. Hollyckuhno (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

To whom it may concern
Hi, please help improve this article by (1) expand the history section (2) removed irrelevant information and (3) add additional citations from third-party sources. Also please use only proper terms and follow the standard of Wikipedia. Thank you. Hollyckuhno (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on GMA Network Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080620075914/http://www.businessmirror.com.ph:80/01102008/companies04.html to http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/01102008/companies04.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080620075914/http://www.businessmirror.com.ph:80/01102008/companies04.html to http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/01102008/companies04.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 04:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

GMA Network (company) → GMA Network Inc. – The name of this company is GMA Network Inc. this is the reason why to request again to move the name of this company name to it's original name. Kazaro (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:OFFICIAL and WP:NCCORP. Current title also is more stable and a more clearer natural parethetical disambiguation from the primary GMA Network.--RioHondo (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NCCORP, the legal status suffix of a company is not normally included in the article title. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 15:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose also per WP:NCCORP. - Supergabbyshoe (talk2me)
 * Support citing WP:NCCORP "When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate. Whenever possible, common usage is preferred. " (Underlining mine.) There is a need to disambiguate the company from the media network it owns. The consistent use of the legal status to differentiate from the media network can be found on the company's website, entry in the PSE, coverage in the Philippine Inquirer, Philippine Star, Reuters to name a few. --Bluemask (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "Inc." sounds stupid. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GMA Network Inc.
Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Kazaro (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection. Also, there hasn't been a high level of vandalism. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 15:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on GMA Network (company). 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/20080816053420/http://www.gmanetwork.com/about to http://www.gmanetwork.com/about
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711102018/http://www.gmanetwork.com/management to http://www.gmanetwork.com/management
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119005517/http://business.inquirer.net:80/money/topstories/view/20110112-314075/GMA7-launches-more-channels-in-US to http://business.inquirer.net/money/topstories/view/20110112-314075/GMA7-launches-more-channels-in-US
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715074453/http://www.philippineasiannewstoday.com/people/showbiz-news/5262-gma-network-launches-gma-news-tv.html to http://www.philippineasiannewstoday.com/people/showbiz-news/5262-gma-network-launches-gma-news-tv.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723155534/http://business.inquirer.net/money/topstories/view/20100611-275093/NTC-chooses-Japan-digital-TV-standard-for-RP to http://business.inquirer.net/money/topstories/view/20100611-275093/NTC-chooses-Japan-digital-TV-standard-for-RP
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723155534/http://business.inquirer.net/money/topstories/view/20100611-275093/NTC-chooses-Japan-digital-TV-standard-for-RP to http://business.inquirer.net/money/topstories/view/20100611-275093/NTC-chooses-Japan-digital-TV-standard-for-RP
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306120213/http://www.gmanetwork.com/international/pinoytv/programguide to http://www.gmanetwork.com/international/pinoytv/programguide/
 * Added tag to https://ph.linkedin.com/company/gma-network-inc.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402112358/http://edge.pse.com.ph/companyInformation/form.do?cmpy_id=611 to http://edge.pse.com.ph/companyInformation/form.do?cmpy_id=611

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on GMA Network (company). 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/20071029151252/http://business.inquirer.net:80/money/breakingnews/view_article.php?article_id=97302 to http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view_article.php?article_id=97302
 * Added tag to http://www.bworld.com.ph/content.php?title=European+standard+better%2C+says+TV+exec&id=25823
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110415162138/http://services.inquirer.net:80/print/print.php?article_id=20110327-327965 to http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20110327-327965
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150131175510/http://technology.inquirer.net:80/infotech/infotech/view/20061208-37156/Philippine_Daily_Inquirer,_GMA_Network_launch_'new_INQ7.net' to http://technology.inquirer.net/infotech/infotech/view/20061208-37156/Philippine_Daily_Inquirer,_GMA_Network_launch_'new_INQ7.net'

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on GMA Network (company). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://business.inquirer.net/money/topstories/view/20110112-314075/GMA7-launches-more-channels-in-US
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110822165431/http://www.gmanews.tv/story/220742/business/earnings-gma-network-posts-18-growth-in-q1-revenues to http://www.gmanews.tv/story/220742/business/earnings-gma-network-posts-18-growth-in-q1-revenues
 * Added tag to http://www.gmapinoytv.com.ph/ver1/article.php?aid=328
 * Added tag to http://www.gmapinoytv.com.ph/ver1/article.php?aid=328
 * Added tag to http://www.gmapinoytv.com.ph/ver1/article.php?aid=612
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=55179
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view_article.php?article_id=97302
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20110327-327965
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://technology.inquirer.net/infotech/infotech/view/20061208-37156/Philippine_Daily_Inquirer%2C_GMA_Network_launch_%27new_INQ7.net%27

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Logo of GMA Network Center
Does anyone know what happened to GMA Network Center's photo? Please look at the GMA Network Inc. article and you might have to block that person from editing because he have done that to other article's also. Helloitsmein (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * GMA Network Center.jpg

"List of former GMA Artist Center artists" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of former GMA Artist Center artists and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)