Talk:SBS Viceland

Its ment to be SBS Two
I have not seen anywhere where is says "SBS World" all I have seen is "SBS Two", the latest Freeview ad (and its website) even shows it as SBS Two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclarenaustralia (talk • contribs) 08:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Bold formatting of "SBS 2"
I removed the bold formatting from "SBS 2" in the History section because that term is already in bold in the lead sentence, and quoting MOS (with my emphasis added): reverted because "Former names are bolted in-article to highlight the name changes." Given that the article title is still "SBS 2", I don't "former name" applies here. Possibly when SBS 2 is rebranded to SBS Viceland: but both before and after any article rename I think the article title should only be in bold once, not twice, per MOS.
 * MOS:BOLD: "... to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article ..."
 * MOS:BOLDSYN: "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles ... are placed in bold"
 * The article will be renamed from SBS 2 to SBS Viceland
 * The lead sentence will change to "SBS Viceland is ... "
 * In the History section SBS 2 will be in bold and SBS Viceland will not (for the same reason I unbolded "SBS 2" when the article is titled "SBS 2")

Comments, opinions for other editors? Mitch Ames (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thanks for clearing it up! However, having the channel name bolded in the history section helps highlight when each name change occurred, including the change to the current name. Additionally, I would like to point out that the MOS that you have quoted are written for the lead section and do not discuss the remainder of the article. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 02:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the channel name bolded in the history section helps highlight when each name change occurred — MOS:NOBOLD says "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text".
 * the MOS that you have quoted are written for the lead section and do not discuss the remainder of the article — True, but MOS:BOLD starts (with my emphasis) "Boldface ... is common in Wikipedia articles, but only for certain usages" then describes those certain usages, including Other uses: "Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases" (including redirects, ie terms that are not the article title).
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The channel is now rebranded, but I still assert that (per my reasoning above) only one instance (the one in the lead sentence) of "SBS Viceland" should be bold in the article - the instance in the History section ought not be. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, given "... previously SBS2", in the lead sentence, the instance of "SBS 2" in the History section ought not be bold. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realise this discussion was going on when I added the lead sentence edit of (previously SBS2). For what its worth, I think the lead is the most appropriate place for bolding terms. If you want to highlight changes in name in the history section, perhaps sub-sections would be a better alternative. As Mitch Ames notes, bolding in article is usually to be avoided where possible, and on this article I think the past name should be bolded in the lead only. -- Whats new?(talk) 08:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the excess bold again. (Including "SBS 2" - I don't think anyone be astonished by a link from "SBS 2" to an article with SBS TWO in the lead sentence.) Mitch Ames (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would still suggest having "(previously SBS TWO and SBS2)" or similar in the lead. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How about this? Note that I've removed the ref, which was a dealink accessed in March 2009 so probably doesn't match the current text anyway. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Better certainly, though I still prefer the more typical parenthesis as described, but happy with that as a compromise. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with "(previously SBS TWO and SBS2)" is that we've already got the parenthetical "stylised as...", and having them both would be a bit much, I think. We could drop the "stylised", because (in my opinion) stylising as allcaps is sufficiently common that it doesn't need to be mentioned, but using a separate sentence for TWO/2 is better for making it clear that they were not contemporaneous, which otherwise the reader might easily and incorrectly assume. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Viceland
SBS 2 does not get renamed to Viceland until 4pm on Tuesday 15 November, 2016 according to http://www.sbs.com.au/sbsviceland/. I suggest that we should not update (or rename) the article to say "SBS Viceland is ..." until it actually is. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This recent edit has the comment "requested a page move from SBS 2 to SBS Viceland, so this should count as part of it" - to which I respond that the page move was reverted for the same reason - the rebranding has not yet happened. please restore the article to match the current reality - that the station is currently called SBS 2 - and wait until it is actually rebranded (4pm tomorrow). Mitch Ames (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. This page should not be moved until the channel has rebranded at 4pm on 15 November 2016. Can the users who are prematurely changing the article's content please cease their edit warring. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 09:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 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 per MOS:TMRULES Fuortu (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

SBS Viceland → SBS VICELAND – Capitallizion of name, as per Official Media released by SBS. Aaron&#39;s The Best (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * But VICELAND is not an acronym. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * MOS:TMRULES says we should use "Viceland", not "VICELAND" - Follow standard English ... capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official". Mitch Ames (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:TMRULES not an acronym In ictu oculi (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the reasons given above Gibbsyspin 03:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppse per above reasons. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:08, 25 November 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.

Merger discussion January 2018
Judging from all the consequences, I think SBS 2 (or, after 15 November 2016, SBS Viceland) should be considered as the continuation of SBS World News Channel with reformatted afternoon and prime time schedule. In fact, the channel continues to air WorldWatch block in the mornings. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 14:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge; my feeling is that there was a sufficient change in scope in 2009 such that the two topics are independently notable. It seems that SBS World News Channel was mostly retransmitting foreign news programmes, where SBS2 (as it was) also screened "documentary series, drama series and international films" and sport. Klbrain (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)