![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 June 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think that we should go out and grab some sources on exactly why this block is replacing the last Saturday Morning cartoon block as we know it in America, as I'm sure many Americans (myself included) will be not only curious, but incensed to learn of this development. Anyways, why the h*ll did they have to replace Vortexx with a non-cartoon block??!!!? I find this absolutely ridiculous, and I would really appreciate it if someone could dig up the reason why they are doing this on some website or other media source. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 06:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
They didn't! NBC Kids is a block of Saturday morning cartoons that's still playing on a major broadcast network (NBC, of course, duh)!
75.162.179.246 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The "sources" are wrong. See the cartoons on NBC during that time and you'll know.
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 18:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, what can we do about spshu, who is edit-warring against 'consensus now (2+ editors) because he/she thinks that:
1. Vortexx "was the last block of Saturday morning cartoons," because 2. NBC Kids "isn't Saturday Morning cartoons" even though it is, because 3. supposedly NBC Kids "isn't a 'traditional cartoon block'" because 4. to him/her, "traditional cartoon block" and "Saturday morning cartoons" mean the same thing even though they don't, despite the FACT that:
A. Saturday morning cartoons still exist on the NBC Kids block, and B. the sources that already support that FACT in Vortexx and Saturday morning cartoon support that here in OMM too, even though he/she thinks they "aren't verified" or "aren't available"?
Pulling my hair out now, 75.162.179.246 ( talk) 21:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Your sources:
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 13:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry for responding in a way that makes you think it's harder to follow. I didn't mean to make it harder to follow. I posted interjections because I thought that responding to each block individually would make it easier to follow.
Okay, I was thinking LazyTown's was cartoony because I thought its props and the fake-people characters were 3D graphics (not regular, flat cartoons, obviously) that are drawn in a cartoon style, with 2 or 3 real people blended into that. But then we have Chica Show and Noodle and Doodle that are clearly not cartoons. Are you saying that those backgrounds, props, and fake-looking "human" characters from LazyTown are actually physical objects, then? If so, then that makes this show a non-cartoon also. (I also understand that even if the items were not physical, but were drawn in a somewhat realistic style, they wouldn't be cartoons then, either, because cartoon isn't just a method but a style too.) So is that what you're saying: that these things from LazyTown that look like 3D-graphic cartoons are actually physical? If that's the case, then since we have 3 shows currently on NBC Kids that are either questionable as potential cartoons (LazyTown) or are certainly not cartoons (2 of them), and then since this block is only 3 hours long, that means these 3 shows make up half of this block, which would render this block as a truely mixed block like you said (half and half). But then that means that we have to verify the questionable one. (LazyTown: is it made of physical objects that are built to look cartoon-like, thus keeping it a live-action show, or is it 3D graphics that are drawn in cartoon style, making it a cartoon?)
So now, even if NBC Kids is a mixed block (which will be firmly established well enough once the less-realistic material inside LazyTown is determined to be still physical instead of just cartoon-styled 3D graphics), then instead of writing that "Saturday morning cartoons are no more" and things like that as the supposed sources say, we should agree to write something like "the end of predominantly-cartoon blocks, but not the end of Saturday morning cartoons completely." Because even your sources falsely write stuff like "RIP, Saturday morning cartoons" and "Saturday morning cartoons are no more," which is false. I don't care if the fact that they're big-name "sources" means to you that they're so-called "reliable sources;" they can still make mistakes and be wrong. They state the loss of blocks like Vortexx as if the lack of cartoons on commercial broadcast TV is an absolute, but it's not. So we can't use those articles as "proof" that Saturday morning cartoons are just gone, because they're wrong about that.
Since when just because an online guide can change doesn't mean it's "not a good source," if you can still go back and look at the schedule of shows (some actually say the names of the shows rather than just the name of a block)? And why would it matter if the changes were into the future or into the past? And by the way, even if you use a source for something, that doesn't mean you're "not claiming it." A person still has a claim even if they have sources to supposedly back them up. That's where phrases like "use sources to back up your claim" come into the picture. Also, if you're going to try to be a goo Wikipedian like you seem to think you are, then you really should do better to write things with correct grammar and punctuation (and even complete your attempted plurals by using an s on words like "source(s)," etc.
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 16:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
How do you figure you know that those so-called (by you) "reliable" sources are even reliable? If someone says "there are no more cartoons on major commercial broadcast network television on Saturday mornings" (such as a phrase like "RIP, Saturday morning cartoons" or "The death of Saturday morning cartoons is complete" implies), but then you see a cartoon on one or more of those major broadcast networks being played on Saturday mornings, then are they still "reliable" (no matter what their size or supposed notoriety)?
NO. Not on that subject.
Oh, you want to talk about following rules now, do you? Well then, what gives you the idea that you should even be writing stuff in an area like this--which, while volunteer-based, still needs the writing to be of a professional quality--if you can't even handle basic grammatical/punctuation structure rules such as shifting from double-quotes to single-quotes and back where necessary (for example, quoting something of mine that already has quotation marks in it, in which case you need to convert mine into single-quote marks), and such as using commas and semicolons where necessary (for example, where you said "then you don't have to edit here no one is forcing you" but meant "then you don't have to edit here; no one is forcing you"? And then why didn't you answer my similar question from my previous response?
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 06:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, nice, spshu, I "love" how you just think you can go back to reediting the page to your liking without even finishing this discussion here, as if you were the "boss" over it or something like that.
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 05:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
You have been editing with and generally exhibiting poor behavior, spshu. So you're saying that just because something is from big AP means it's always reliable? So just because AP says it makes it true? So just because big AP says Poppy Cat, for example, "isn't a cartoon" (using their phrase "Saturday morning cartoons are no more") makes it true even though they're actually WRONG?
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 15:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
5 other sources? I don't care if it's 6 "sources" or 6 million sources. If they're too ignorant to check out NBC Kids and know that while you and I have now agreed that the block doesn't have enough cartoons in it to call it a cartoon block, it still *has cartoons* and therefore any claims that "Saturday morning cartoons are no more," etc. are false, then they are *wrong*. It's not my "opinion." Someone who can't see that there are still cartoons on a commercial broadcast network on Saturday mornings is either blind, lazy, or an idiot, or a combination of those. Just find a source that doesn't claim that the cartoons are all gone from there (with some dumb, wrong statement like, "RIP, Saturday morning cartoons" or "Saturday morning cartoons are no more"), and then don't write it like all the cartoons are gone from there, and then it will be fine.
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
←Yes, the term "cartoon block" is the issue as the articles are quoted as using "cartoon block" or cartoons implying cartoon block and that is what you have been reversing and edit warring about. Spshu ( talk) 14:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The term " Saturday morning cartoon" has very specific implications in U.S. popular culture. Even though that NBC block may technically be airing animated programming, it is not the type of programming that is culturally associated with the term. These blocks were only forced into filling themselves up with so much educational programming that they decided to just stick with it and give up on non-educational shows due to that and other factors. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've protected the page from editing for a week to cool down the edit war on the page. Please discuss your dispute above and if you can come to a consensus before the week is over, I'll remove the protection. Any future edit-warring or sock-puppeting will lead to blocks. Kuru (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Uh... you didn't notice that I already DID start a discussion above here?
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 00:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Obviously what? Obviously (to you) I started that discussion, or obviously you didn't notice that I did?
And then if it was "obvious" that you didn't notice that I started that discussion already, what was it that stopped you from noticing that somewhat big new section being added?
And then if it was obvious to you that I started that discussion, then why did you act as if I had not?
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 02:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Edit summaries:
Ttll213, you are reverting as the vandal as reasons have been given for reversing your edits. They have not been sourced. A schedule like TV Guide or the like is not a sufficient source nor might it current represent the show of the block as the block could have been partial displaced for other programming. For example, Sinclair Broadcasting runs American Sports Network on its CW subchannels on Saturday. Your edit has been challenged by my reversal thus it is up to you to provide a source. Spshu ( talk) 16:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Your ASN example is irrelevant, because OMM is CW network programming, not syndicated. I never once claimed those shows were cancelled. They are, however, currently off the lineup, which my edit reflects. Quit putting words in my mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
"Former is canceled as far as the OMM block is concerned" Says who? Those shows are longer being shown on the block, therefore they're "former" programming as far as OMM is concerned. That has nothing to do with whether they're canceled or not. I don't know why you keep bringing up ASN, that has absolutely nothing to do with OMM's lineup. STNA is obviously wrong, multiple sources such as Variety and TVNewsCheck confirm OMM is CW network programming, not syndication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Whether they're on winter break or not is irrelevant. They're currently not on the lineup, and won't be for the foreseeable future. Once again, I still don't know why you keep bringing up ASN. I check multiple affiliate lineups in multiple markets. I'm well aware what station is owned by who, and I can distinguish which stations are preempting it or not. Preemption's aren't going to magically change what programs air on OMM, as you seem to believe. Also, you're out of your mind if you still think that OMM is syndication. Even the promotional bumpers that air within the block verbally use CW network branding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Get this through your head: Whether or not they're on break is irrelevant. They're not on the lineup anymore, so they're former programming. If they eventually decide return at a future date, then they'll be moved to current programming. Simple as that.
ASN - Good job at pulling BS out of thin air. As I said before, I can distinguish which stations are carrying ASN and which are not. I can also determine if a station shifting around the block or not. But, as before, this is IRRELEVANT, because ASN preemption's DO NOT change the programming that is shown on OMM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
"ASN is not pulling BS out of thin air, based on your standard if they are preempted by ASN then they would be former programs as the program was shown and thus should be by your standard "former" programs." - This is a delusion of your own creation. The subject of ASN preemption's are completely moot to the subject of the programming that is on OMM's lineup. You seem incapable of comprehending this. If you still doubt the lineup changes, why don't you actually observe the block's broadcast on television? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Since your delusional state of mind can't comprehend that the subject of ASN station preemption's is completely irrelevant to the programming content that OMM provides on its lineup, I will ignore any further mention of it by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
" since I am using your logic against you" - No, you're just spewing out a bunch of nonsense. " they are not on the schedule." - Exactly! Therefore, they're labeled as former programming as they are no longer on the lineup. If they eventually decide to return them to the lineup in the future, then they'll be moved to current programming. This isn't a hard concept. Ttll213 ( talk) 08:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
OMM is a programming block, not a network, so your comparison is invalid, as is your fantasy definition of "schedule". Once again, whether those shows have been cancelled or not is irrelevant. They are no longer on the lineup for the foreseeable future, therefore they are former programming as far as OMM is concerned. Ttll213 ( talk) 03:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. OMM is distributed as a part of the CW network, but OMM is not programmed by CW. It's programmed by Litton. It's a block. I'll type it again so that you can process it. It's a block. Your comparison is still invalid. Ttll213 ( talk) 00:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You're the one hand waving facts away and being a jerk. I see that my edits have been vindicated. Thank you, Shadeed. Ttll213 ( talk) 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You kept denying that the lineup had changed, and you've been proven wrong. Ttll213 ( talk) 23:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
From the following:
This is their official site and I don't see the other two programs listed on THIS schedule. And they're not on my cable's guide. King Shadeed 12:01, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why some of the originally announced shows that didn't end up on the premier line up are listed under "Upcoming programming". Since there has been no news about these shows they show have been left in the history as announced but not shown as we cannot know if these show got out of development or pilot and reject or sent back for retooling or what ever the situation is. I guess the history wording that was there previously ("Additional programmings announced but not place on the premiere schedule were America's Flavors, Taste of Home, Swag and Social Media Mania.") may have implied that they are upcoming but to indicate that they were announce but not programmed into that line up. -- Spshu ( talk) 15:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
There is quite a bit of edit warring ( [1], [2], etc.) regarding the inclusion of the abbreviation "OMM" in the lede. What's the consensus? What do others think? JoeSperrazza ( talk) 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Close disruptive failure to listen by persistent CenturyLink ( Salt Lake City, Utah) IP Sockpuppet of User:IDriveAStickShift |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
When there's only ONE other mention of it, why not just spell it out? But if I go over to another article and add similar abbreviations because it has several mentions, why are we undoing them? 75.162.243.229 ( talk) 18:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Why must you insist that similar articles be formatted differently? 75.162.243.229 ( talk) 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 June 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think that we should go out and grab some sources on exactly why this block is replacing the last Saturday Morning cartoon block as we know it in America, as I'm sure many Americans (myself included) will be not only curious, but incensed to learn of this development. Anyways, why the h*ll did they have to replace Vortexx with a non-cartoon block??!!!? I find this absolutely ridiculous, and I would really appreciate it if someone could dig up the reason why they are doing this on some website or other media source. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 06:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
They didn't! NBC Kids is a block of Saturday morning cartoons that's still playing on a major broadcast network (NBC, of course, duh)!
75.162.179.246 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The "sources" are wrong. See the cartoons on NBC during that time and you'll know.
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 18:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, what can we do about spshu, who is edit-warring against 'consensus now (2+ editors) because he/she thinks that:
1. Vortexx "was the last block of Saturday morning cartoons," because 2. NBC Kids "isn't Saturday Morning cartoons" even though it is, because 3. supposedly NBC Kids "isn't a 'traditional cartoon block'" because 4. to him/her, "traditional cartoon block" and "Saturday morning cartoons" mean the same thing even though they don't, despite the FACT that:
A. Saturday morning cartoons still exist on the NBC Kids block, and B. the sources that already support that FACT in Vortexx and Saturday morning cartoon support that here in OMM too, even though he/she thinks they "aren't verified" or "aren't available"?
Pulling my hair out now, 75.162.179.246 ( talk) 21:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Your sources:
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 13:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry for responding in a way that makes you think it's harder to follow. I didn't mean to make it harder to follow. I posted interjections because I thought that responding to each block individually would make it easier to follow.
Okay, I was thinking LazyTown's was cartoony because I thought its props and the fake-people characters were 3D graphics (not regular, flat cartoons, obviously) that are drawn in a cartoon style, with 2 or 3 real people blended into that. But then we have Chica Show and Noodle and Doodle that are clearly not cartoons. Are you saying that those backgrounds, props, and fake-looking "human" characters from LazyTown are actually physical objects, then? If so, then that makes this show a non-cartoon also. (I also understand that even if the items were not physical, but were drawn in a somewhat realistic style, they wouldn't be cartoons then, either, because cartoon isn't just a method but a style too.) So is that what you're saying: that these things from LazyTown that look like 3D-graphic cartoons are actually physical? If that's the case, then since we have 3 shows currently on NBC Kids that are either questionable as potential cartoons (LazyTown) or are certainly not cartoons (2 of them), and then since this block is only 3 hours long, that means these 3 shows make up half of this block, which would render this block as a truely mixed block like you said (half and half). But then that means that we have to verify the questionable one. (LazyTown: is it made of physical objects that are built to look cartoon-like, thus keeping it a live-action show, or is it 3D graphics that are drawn in cartoon style, making it a cartoon?)
So now, even if NBC Kids is a mixed block (which will be firmly established well enough once the less-realistic material inside LazyTown is determined to be still physical instead of just cartoon-styled 3D graphics), then instead of writing that "Saturday morning cartoons are no more" and things like that as the supposed sources say, we should agree to write something like "the end of predominantly-cartoon blocks, but not the end of Saturday morning cartoons completely." Because even your sources falsely write stuff like "RIP, Saturday morning cartoons" and "Saturday morning cartoons are no more," which is false. I don't care if the fact that they're big-name "sources" means to you that they're so-called "reliable sources;" they can still make mistakes and be wrong. They state the loss of blocks like Vortexx as if the lack of cartoons on commercial broadcast TV is an absolute, but it's not. So we can't use those articles as "proof" that Saturday morning cartoons are just gone, because they're wrong about that.
Since when just because an online guide can change doesn't mean it's "not a good source," if you can still go back and look at the schedule of shows (some actually say the names of the shows rather than just the name of a block)? And why would it matter if the changes were into the future or into the past? And by the way, even if you use a source for something, that doesn't mean you're "not claiming it." A person still has a claim even if they have sources to supposedly back them up. That's where phrases like "use sources to back up your claim" come into the picture. Also, if you're going to try to be a goo Wikipedian like you seem to think you are, then you really should do better to write things with correct grammar and punctuation (and even complete your attempted plurals by using an s on words like "source(s)," etc.
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 16:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
How do you figure you know that those so-called (by you) "reliable" sources are even reliable? If someone says "there are no more cartoons on major commercial broadcast network television on Saturday mornings" (such as a phrase like "RIP, Saturday morning cartoons" or "The death of Saturday morning cartoons is complete" implies), but then you see a cartoon on one or more of those major broadcast networks being played on Saturday mornings, then are they still "reliable" (no matter what their size or supposed notoriety)?
NO. Not on that subject.
Oh, you want to talk about following rules now, do you? Well then, what gives you the idea that you should even be writing stuff in an area like this--which, while volunteer-based, still needs the writing to be of a professional quality--if you can't even handle basic grammatical/punctuation structure rules such as shifting from double-quotes to single-quotes and back where necessary (for example, quoting something of mine that already has quotation marks in it, in which case you need to convert mine into single-quote marks), and such as using commas and semicolons where necessary (for example, where you said "then you don't have to edit here no one is forcing you" but meant "then you don't have to edit here; no one is forcing you"? And then why didn't you answer my similar question from my previous response?
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 06:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, nice, spshu, I "love" how you just think you can go back to reediting the page to your liking without even finishing this discussion here, as if you were the "boss" over it or something like that.
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 05:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
You have been editing with and generally exhibiting poor behavior, spshu. So you're saying that just because something is from big AP means it's always reliable? So just because AP says it makes it true? So just because big AP says Poppy Cat, for example, "isn't a cartoon" (using their phrase "Saturday morning cartoons are no more") makes it true even though they're actually WRONG?
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 15:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
5 other sources? I don't care if it's 6 "sources" or 6 million sources. If they're too ignorant to check out NBC Kids and know that while you and I have now agreed that the block doesn't have enough cartoons in it to call it a cartoon block, it still *has cartoons* and therefore any claims that "Saturday morning cartoons are no more," etc. are false, then they are *wrong*. It's not my "opinion." Someone who can't see that there are still cartoons on a commercial broadcast network on Saturday mornings is either blind, lazy, or an idiot, or a combination of those. Just find a source that doesn't claim that the cartoons are all gone from there (with some dumb, wrong statement like, "RIP, Saturday morning cartoons" or "Saturday morning cartoons are no more"), and then don't write it like all the cartoons are gone from there, and then it will be fine.
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
←Yes, the term "cartoon block" is the issue as the articles are quoted as using "cartoon block" or cartoons implying cartoon block and that is what you have been reversing and edit warring about. Spshu ( talk) 14:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The term " Saturday morning cartoon" has very specific implications in U.S. popular culture. Even though that NBC block may technically be airing animated programming, it is not the type of programming that is culturally associated with the term. These blocks were only forced into filling themselves up with so much educational programming that they decided to just stick with it and give up on non-educational shows due to that and other factors. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've protected the page from editing for a week to cool down the edit war on the page. Please discuss your dispute above and if you can come to a consensus before the week is over, I'll remove the protection. Any future edit-warring or sock-puppeting will lead to blocks. Kuru (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Uh... you didn't notice that I already DID start a discussion above here?
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 00:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Obviously what? Obviously (to you) I started that discussion, or obviously you didn't notice that I did?
And then if it was "obvious" that you didn't notice that I started that discussion already, what was it that stopped you from noticing that somewhat big new section being added?
And then if it was obvious to you that I started that discussion, then why did you act as if I had not?
75.162.179.246 ( talk) 02:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Edit summaries:
Ttll213, you are reverting as the vandal as reasons have been given for reversing your edits. They have not been sourced. A schedule like TV Guide or the like is not a sufficient source nor might it current represent the show of the block as the block could have been partial displaced for other programming. For example, Sinclair Broadcasting runs American Sports Network on its CW subchannels on Saturday. Your edit has been challenged by my reversal thus it is up to you to provide a source. Spshu ( talk) 16:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Your ASN example is irrelevant, because OMM is CW network programming, not syndicated. I never once claimed those shows were cancelled. They are, however, currently off the lineup, which my edit reflects. Quit putting words in my mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 ( talk • contribs) 18:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
"Former is canceled as far as the OMM block is concerned" Says who? Those shows are longer being shown on the block, therefore they're "former" programming as far as OMM is concerned. That has nothing to do with whether they're canceled or not. I don't know why you keep bringing up ASN, that has absolutely nothing to do with OMM's lineup. STNA is obviously wrong, multiple sources such as Variety and TVNewsCheck confirm OMM is CW network programming, not syndication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Whether they're on winter break or not is irrelevant. They're currently not on the lineup, and won't be for the foreseeable future. Once again, I still don't know why you keep bringing up ASN. I check multiple affiliate lineups in multiple markets. I'm well aware what station is owned by who, and I can distinguish which stations are preempting it or not. Preemption's aren't going to magically change what programs air on OMM, as you seem to believe. Also, you're out of your mind if you still think that OMM is syndication. Even the promotional bumpers that air within the block verbally use CW network branding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Get this through your head: Whether or not they're on break is irrelevant. They're not on the lineup anymore, so they're former programming. If they eventually decide return at a future date, then they'll be moved to current programming. Simple as that.
ASN - Good job at pulling BS out of thin air. As I said before, I can distinguish which stations are carrying ASN and which are not. I can also determine if a station shifting around the block or not. But, as before, this is IRRELEVANT, because ASN preemption's DO NOT change the programming that is shown on OMM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 ( talk • contribs) 05:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
"ASN is not pulling BS out of thin air, based on your standard if they are preempted by ASN then they would be former programs as the program was shown and thus should be by your standard "former" programs." - This is a delusion of your own creation. The subject of ASN preemption's are completely moot to the subject of the programming that is on OMM's lineup. You seem incapable of comprehending this. If you still doubt the lineup changes, why don't you actually observe the block's broadcast on television? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Since your delusional state of mind can't comprehend that the subject of ASN station preemption's is completely irrelevant to the programming content that OMM provides on its lineup, I will ignore any further mention of it by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttll213 ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
" since I am using your logic against you" - No, you're just spewing out a bunch of nonsense. " they are not on the schedule." - Exactly! Therefore, they're labeled as former programming as they are no longer on the lineup. If they eventually decide to return them to the lineup in the future, then they'll be moved to current programming. This isn't a hard concept. Ttll213 ( talk) 08:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
OMM is a programming block, not a network, so your comparison is invalid, as is your fantasy definition of "schedule". Once again, whether those shows have been cancelled or not is irrelevant. They are no longer on the lineup for the foreseeable future, therefore they are former programming as far as OMM is concerned. Ttll213 ( talk) 03:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. OMM is distributed as a part of the CW network, but OMM is not programmed by CW. It's programmed by Litton. It's a block. I'll type it again so that you can process it. It's a block. Your comparison is still invalid. Ttll213 ( talk) 00:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You're the one hand waving facts away and being a jerk. I see that my edits have been vindicated. Thank you, Shadeed. Ttll213 ( talk) 18:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You kept denying that the lineup had changed, and you've been proven wrong. Ttll213 ( talk) 23:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
From the following:
This is their official site and I don't see the other two programs listed on THIS schedule. And they're not on my cable's guide. King Shadeed 12:01, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why some of the originally announced shows that didn't end up on the premier line up are listed under "Upcoming programming". Since there has been no news about these shows they show have been left in the history as announced but not shown as we cannot know if these show got out of development or pilot and reject or sent back for retooling or what ever the situation is. I guess the history wording that was there previously ("Additional programmings announced but not place on the premiere schedule were America's Flavors, Taste of Home, Swag and Social Media Mania.") may have implied that they are upcoming but to indicate that they were announce but not programmed into that line up. -- Spshu ( talk) 15:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
There is quite a bit of edit warring ( [1], [2], etc.) regarding the inclusion of the abbreviation "OMM" in the lede. What's the consensus? What do others think? JoeSperrazza ( talk) 12:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Close disruptive failure to listen by persistent CenturyLink ( Salt Lake City, Utah) IP Sockpuppet of User:IDriveAStickShift |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
When there's only ONE other mention of it, why not just spell it out? But if I go over to another article and add similar abbreviations because it has several mentions, why are we undoing them? 75.162.243.229 ( talk) 18:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Why must you insist that similar articles be formatted differently? 75.162.243.229 ( talk) 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
|