Talk:M3 (Canadian TV channel)

Logo
Someone keeps replacing the Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. The SVG version is more accurate (rounded corners). The SVG format seems superior to gif and generally renders a sharper final product. Keep the SVG version or use the gif? Tkgd2007 (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The GIF. version of the logo is a more accurate version of the logo, it doesn't have rounded edges. A SVG. image does not trump any image of better accuracy. GIF. is an acceptable image file to use in articles and this version is of good quality as well. I think the GIF. file is a bteer logo to use for those reasons. MusiMax (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm quite certain the logo has rounded edges and is black, not slate grey. www.muchmoremusic.com/. Here's a comparison: [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|150px]] [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|150px]] The SVG is sharper, so I say we should use the SVG.Tkgd2007 (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the logo has rounded edges but I do agree that when you compare the two, I do see that the SVG. version is sharper. I don't see this as being a huge deal so I would say have at least 1 more user weigh in on it (but obviously more can weigh in as well, the more the merrier) and whatever they think we should use, then use that one. Seems fair enough. MusiMax (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to agree that the SVG. logo is the better choice to add to the article. I've taken a closer look at the logo from the web site and others and it does look to have rounded edges and so forth, a better and more accurate logo to use in the article, adding to the fact that the SVG. logo is a better picture quality as well. So, I'm going to add it back to the article now. MusiMax (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge
I have suggested a merge from the MMM Profile article. I don't think MMM Profile is a notable show, so I did an AfD. The result of the AfD was "keep", and I was assured MMM Profile is a notable show. The MMM Profile article is languishing; it really needs to be more than a list of artists who've been profiled on the show if the show is truly notable. Since a deltion nomination already failed, let's try merging the MMM Profile article into the MMM page. -- Mikeblas 15:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think merging MMMProfile with this article is a good idea. The MuchMoreMusic article is about te channel itself and not about going into specific detail about a mondain show that airs on it. MMMProfile is fine having its own article, theres no need in merging it with MMM. 74.109.62.238 17:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I trust that you mean "mundane". You've not provided much of an argument in substance. (What is your specific reasoning for thinking the MMM Profle article should stand alone?) I'm interested in performing the merge because MMM Profile is mundane; I tried to have the article deleted, but the AfD failed. As such, I think it's appropriate to merge it to this article. Merging related topics is common practice in wikipedia. A musician in a band, for example, wouldn't have fame if it weren't for the band but is likely to have one little notable work of their own. As such, many band articles include information about the musicians, merged from non-notable articles about their members. I think that analogously applies to a notable network and its non-notable shows. -- Mikeblas 20:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just don't think that filling up the MuchMoreMusic article with pointless info about one specific show that really isn't that important is a good idea. Just mention the show like it is now in the article and having a link to specifics about the show. And the MMM Profile article is worth keeping around on its own anyways I think. Its a tv sow and why should this tv show not have its own article and others should? 74.109.62.238 18:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This tag has been up for a very long time now and there has been no consenus on the issue... removing tag MusiMax 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's been no legitimate argument against merging, and merging was also suggested in Articles for deletion/MMM_Profile. While the show might be notable per Wikipedia's weak standards because its often on and broadcast well, it has apparently done nothing to advance the genere, change its market, and so on. The MMM Profile article has been a sub-stub for a very long time without improvement, and I think that speaks to how little can be written about the show.


 * The "other articles" argument is a fallacy, and ill-founded at that. -- Mikeblas 14:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger Discussion # 2
I propose merging CTV Life Channel into M3 (Canadian TV channel) so that the Gusto TV article can be unmerged and become its own independent article that can be used for the subject Gusto TV which is a TV channel that currently exists today in international markets around the world which is tied to the former Canadian Gusto TV that was shut down to make way for M3 to rebrand as Gusto TV in Canada. As with most Canadian TV channel articles, when a channel rebrands, the old name's article (M3) is moved to the new name's article (Gusto TV, then CTV Life Channel). However, this subject did not follow that same trajectory, as when M3 rebranded as Gusto TV, the M3 article was kept separate. I believe that the articles be merged because Gusto TV name is tied up with the CTV Life Channel / M3 subject.musimax. (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd note that this failed when you tried it five years ago at Talk:CTV Life Channel, because the rule is not that any channel that "rebrands" (which isn't actually what happened here, which I'll get into momentarily) always has to be moved away from the old name to the new one — rather, it's a question of context. If a channel rebrands but is fundamentally still the same thing after the rebranding, such as Gusto becoming CTV Life but not really changing its programming focus, then obviously we just move the article, but that's not what happened here. M3 did not "become" Gusto and then CTV Life; M3 was shut down outright, and a new thing called Gusto popped in to pick up its old channel allotments. So M3 is in no sense "the same thing as Gusto" for the purposes of having to move or merge its article: M3 did not become Gusto; M3 is a thing that completely ceased to exist at all, and Gusto/CTV Life is a completely different thing with no continuity of any sort with M3 above and beyond where the cable companies happened to place it on the dial.
 * So firstly, trying it again here while deliberately failing to provide any link to the first discussion so that participants can evaluate this in context is not on.
 * And secondly, if the idea here has to do with facilitating the creation of an article about the international iteration of Gusto, then why does merging or not merging M3 have anything to do with that? The first can easily happen without necessarily having to mandate the second. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is 100% untrue. M3 did not cease to exist and a new thing called Gusto popped up. M3 and Gusto are the same thing. They use the same licence. This was a rebrand just like any other rebrand such as talktv becoming MTV Canada. M3 became Gusto which became CTV Life. It's very clear that when the deal of purchase was announced that Bell was buying Gusto, that Bell was buying the brand only, not the channel. When the deal closed, Gusto (a Cat B channel owned by Knight Enterprises) shut down and Bell rebranded M3 as Gusto. The same M3 licence was used, not the Cat B Knight Enterprises licence. Even in CRTC documents, its lists Gusto as previously M3 - case in point - this Broadcasting Decision 2017-149 from the CRTC where the CRTC specifically lists Gusto as previously M3 and removed the condition of licence requiring Gusto to contribute to MuchFACT which was never a condition of licence for Gusto owned by Knight Enterprises but was for M3. For those not wanting to look it up, this is what it says "...for Much and Gusto (formerly M3), to delete the condition of licence requiring the licensee to contribute to MuchFACT." This is such as clear-cut fact that it is not even debatable any more.
 * Secondly, to address the issue that channels who fundamentally change focus from their previous incarnation do not necessarily have their articles moved in a rebrand, this has always been the case on Wikipedia when it comes to the Canadian channels at least. SexTV --> W Movies --> Cooking Channel, talktv --> MTV Canada, radX --> BBC Earth Canada, Country Canada --> bold --> Cottage Life TV, and BiteTV --> Makeful... all of these are examples of where the original channel and rebranded channel were fundamentally different from one another yet the articles were moved because it was a rebrand, not an instance of one channel shutting down and another one taking its place. Canada is unique in that most channels now have licences connected to them, so you can follow the paper trail and connect rebranded channels to their original licence. In this case, Gusto and CTV Life use the original M3 licence. The 100% fact remains that M3, Gusto, and CTV Life are all the same channel and the articles should be merged to connect the history. Right now, the CTV Life Channel is fundamentally wrong - it makes it seem like CTV Life's origins started in 2013 which is 100% false.musimax. (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Followup discussion

 * I am in no way incorrect about anything. This was not a straightforward "X became Y, the end" situation at all — it was a case where two predecessor channels both already existed prior to being fundamentally merged into one thing, and so the new channel had conflicting continuities with two different things at the same time. So the question here is: is Knight-Gusto principally the same thing as CTV-Gusto and M3 is something different because of the substantive continuity of branding and programming focus between the Gustos, or is Knight-Gusto something different and CTV-Gusto is the same thing as M3 because of an insignificant legal technicality that was essentially invisible to the end viewer? The correct answer here is the former: our articles are structured on the basis of what's most useful to the reader, not on the basis of insider baseball, and what's most useful to the reader is to split the topics at the "continuous Gusto regardless of ownership" + "M3" point of differentiation. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact is that M3 became Gusto, which then became CTV Life Channel. Knight's Gusto shut down. That is 100% fact. There is no debate here if you are trying to argue otherwise. If you are arguing otherwise, then keep screaming into the void with yourself. M3, Gusto (under Bell), and CTV Life all use the same licence, thus are the continuation of the same channel. You can debate whether the articles should be merged on that basis, but if you cant agree on that, then any point you make is moot.musimax. (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Continuity of license is not the only consideration that enters into which of its two predecessors CTV Life is or isn't fundamentally the same thing as — continuity of branding and programming also very much enters into which of its two predecessors CTV Life is or isn't fundamentally the same thing as. CTV Life has some form of continuity with both Knight-Gusto and M3 at the same time, Knight-Gusto by the substance of every single viewer-facing aspect of its entire brand identity and programming schedule as of the time of the switchover, and M3 only by the fact that Bell-Gusto was technically piggybacked onto the regulatory license of M3 because the company had opted to shut M3 down around the same time as it took over Knight-Gusto, so the continuity with Knight-Gusto trumps the continuity with M3 rather than vice versa. Our articles are structured from the perspective of what's most useful to the viewer, not from the perspective of insider baseball — CTV Life has conflicting continuities with two different things, so it has to come down to the question of which continuity is more transparent and straightforward to the viewer rather than which one is more technically legalese on paper.
 * Again, if there were only one predecessor, then we would obviously just move the article because there was no conflict — if Gusto had been a new brand that CTV created itself from scratch to replace M3, there wouldn't be a problem. But Gusto was actually a thing that also already existed before CTV took over ownership of it and used it to kill M3, which means there were two different predecessor channels that both have conflicting claims to being more "continuous" with CTV Life than the other — so we have to decide which of those two competing continuity claims better serves the reader, and the reader is better served by prioritizing the continuity of branding and programming rather than the continuity of an obscure licensing document.
 * As I said the first time, we would have to have two separate articles about CTV itself if we applied the standard you want to apply here: one about a defunct cooperative that only existed from 1961 to 1997, and a separate one about post-1997 CTV that fused it with the history of Baton Broadcasting instead of the history of pre-1997 CTV. But that's not what best serves the reader: the reader is best served by treating "CTV" as the continuous topic and "Baton" as the splitout, rather than by splitting CTV up into two separate topics at the 1997 takeover of CTV by Baton — the continuity of CTV's branding has to take precedence over the continuity of CTV's ownership, because our content is structured for the benefit of readers rather than the benefit of corporate lawyers. It's the same here: there are two different predecessor topics competing for which one should be treated as the primary continuity, so we have to ask ourselves which one better serves the reader: the continuity of branding and programming that followed the Knight-Gusto→Bell-Gusto→CTV Life path, or the continuity of ownership that started with M3 instead of Knight-Gusto? The answer is, the reader is better served in this case by treating the brand as the continuous topic, rather than the license. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Readers are best served by the truth and the truth is that M3 did not shut down, it was rebranded and the same channel that exists today (CTV Life) is the same channel as MuchMoreMusic that launched in 1998. The articles as they are written now are false which is not in the best interest of the reader, especially when most all other channels follow this same rule of thumb. Readers are best served by merging the two articles and giving reference to the original Gusto owned by Knight in the article (a paragraph or two, but then stating "for more info on the Gusto owned by Knight, see Gusto TV article" or something along those lines). This is even more important given that 1) Gusto TV has remained on the air ever since Gusto essentially licensed the name and programming to Bell in Canada where Gusto remained on the air internationally, and 2) Gusto TV now is available in Canada again as a linear channel on Samsung TVs and according to the press release by Gusto Worldwide Media, they plan on launching on other platforms in Canada down the road.musimax. (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * None of this is a matter of upholding or suppressing "the truth": there are two things which are both true but are competing with each other. This is not a case of "CTV Life = M3 while Gusto is something different" being the truth while "CTV Life = Gusto while M3 is something different" is a lie — those statements are both true in different ways that conflict with each other, so we have to adjudicate which of those two truths is more important than the other for the purposes of how to structure our articles.
 * There are two competing truths here, because CTV Life has two different predecessors — one predecessor, M3, by an obscure legal technicality of insider baseball, and a different predecessor, Knight-Gusto, by the substance of every single thing a viewer could actually see about the channel's branding and programming. That's why it's necessary to not just automatically treat this exactly the same way as any other channel that rebrands to a different name: most channels that rebrand to a new name only have one predecessor entity, meaning that there's no "X or Y?" conflict in just moving the article to the new name, but this one has two different predecessors, leading to a conflict as to which of its two predecessors should be treated as the "continuous" topic and which one should be chunked out as the different topic. If there was only one predecessor entity, then we would just move the page — but there were two predecessor entities, which is a situation that has to be handled differently than if there had only been one predecessor.
 * Again, this is not comparable to The Comedy Network rebranding as CTV Comedy Channel, because CTV Comedy only had one predecessor — but CTV Life had two predecessors, which makes it more comparable to Baton's takeover of CTV in 1997. CTV as it exists in 2022 has a continuity of branding and programming with CTV as it existed prior to 1997, but it doesn't have a continuity of ownership with CTV as it existed prior to 1997 — it used to be a cooperative of all of its affiliated station owners, but in 1997 it was taken over by Baton Broadcasting, and thus isn't the same company as it was before 1997. So if we were to do what you're demanding here, we would also have to split CTV up into two separate articles as well: one about a defunct cooperative that only existed from 1961 to 1997, and a different one that merged post-1997 CTV with Baton Broadcasting instead of with pre-1997 CTV. But that is not how to best serve the reader: the reader is better served by treating CTV as the throughline topic on branding and programming grounds, with Baton Broadcasting as the splitout, not vice versa.
 * It's not a question of "automatically follow the license in all situations" — it's a question of "was there only one predecessor entity, in which case we can just move the page because it's straightforward and there's nothing to debate, or was there more than one predecessor entity, in which case we have to make a decision about which page to move and which page to leave alone?". In this case there was more than one predecessor entity. In a multiple-predecessors situation Wikipedia does not have any rule that the continuity of the CRTC license document automatically takes precedence over the continuity of branding and programming — I'll remind you one more time, we would have to split CTV up into two separate articles (and upmerge Baton Broadcasting into one of them) if that were the rule, and the reason we don't do it that way is because "continuity of ownership automatically trumps continuity of branding and programming" isn't the rule in a dual-predecessor situation like that or this.
 * And finally, as I've already said before: if you can actually write and properly source an article about Knight Enterprises' revival of the Gusto brand as an encyclopedic topic, then nothing about this is stopping you from doing that. It simply does not require M3 to be merged into CTV Life before you can start a new article about Gusto, because it can be done just as easily either way. Bearcat (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)