Jump to content

Talk:GMA Network/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Partnerships

Perhaps those would have to be updated, or are we making it historical? Howard the Duck | talk, 11:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I really think that this part of the article must go. This list is incomplete, and would grow overtime.

We a little referencing it would be a "legit" section. --Howard the Duck 15:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

GMA Network Addresses:

I think they can merged with another section. --Howard the Duck 14:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Campus radio 97.1

Hope GMA will bring back the old format..The new one sucks big time! Hate GMA for wanting to '"earn"' more...

Talk pages aren't discussion forums. Use PEX or some other website. --Howard the Duck 02:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Some Unnecessary Info and Criticisms

  • "When democracy in the Philippines was restored in the People Power Revolution in 1986, television stations began to air, some with their original owners. ABS-CBN..."
    • What's the point of this paragraph? It's all about ABS-CBN.
  • GMA Radio-Television Arts section needs sources and/or a rewrite. Too much history, some irrelevant info there. Potentially libelous statements if unreferenced, for example: "Imee Marcos, daughter of Ferdinand Marcos, attempted to takeover GMA".
  • Throughout the entire article, the present tenses and past tenses are so messed up it just ain't funny.
  • "The production of various shows were up to par with its rival network, ABS-CBN."
    • More unnecessary mention of ABS-CBN. In fact, the sentence should just be stricken from the record.
    • "GMA finally gained a rating advantage in Mega Manila over ABS-CBN, officially on September 23, 2004." What's the point?
  • There are a lot of statements presented as facts which have no references.
  • "In April, the founder of the network, Robert "Uncle Bob" Stewart died in the United States." I don't see the point of the statement. Maybe on the person's article (if one exists), but it has nothing to do with GMA as it is.
  • Too much of the article is centred around ratings. Far too much than is actually encyclopedic.
  • "In a 2006 survey conducted by Pulse Asia, 7 out of 10 Metro Manila-based viewers find GMA Network a more credible network than rival ABS-CBN." I don't see the relevance to the article. Sounds like some editors might have a WP:COI since a lot of the article sounds like mere chest-beating.
  • A lot of the article sounds like it was written by GMA employees or people affiliated with the network (this applies to a LOT of Philippine company articles I've seen). I refer these editors to WP:COI.

A lot of work needs to be done on this article. Shrumster 21:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with this, but since you know where to look at, perhaps you do it. I'll back it up of someone goes ballistic. --Howard the Duck 07:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GMA Kapusostars.jpg

Image:GMA Kapusostars.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

pki send nga po ang organizational structures nio.

Programming

Are all stations nationwide show the same thing? Or are there local variants? --Howard the Duck 11:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, Iloilo and Cebu has some entertainment programs.

What days and times are they shown? Are they shown on primetime? So we can edit the TV programs section. (Also, sign your posts with ~~~~ so we'll know who you are. --Howard the Duck 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As with the Wikipedia article on CNN for example, it may be easier to maintain this article if it would only mention a list of significant shows and personalities both past and present/current. Better if such lists can be gathered and presented via web service. Otherwise, avoid information that are highly dynamic and include only those that can be maintained as current. FYI: programmings of most TV networks in the Philippines can change every year, every quarter or every month.--Mendz 06:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

New Branding Page

How about a new, chunky article about the branding of GMA? I propose that the article contains a merged GMA Network Logos and the Where You Belong Page. We might as well put the lyrics of GMA's current theme song, as it would probably not go well with the main page. All the mottos and slogans would go into that page, and the only mottos left for this page would be the first three ones. What do you think?

In the first place, the section is irrelevant and may be removed; or condensed instead to include only significant branding logos and slogans instead of including also the seasonal slogans. This will make the article easier to maintain with less dynamic information.--Mendz 11:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

GMA Ratings

  • It says that GMA's ratings are higher then ABS-CBN's when in fact ABS has higher ratings, the ratings that they showed on the page were only PRIMETIME ratings not the total ratings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.26.155 (talk • contribs)
    • For what it's worth, only Mega Manila primetime ratings are what the advertisers want. --Howard the Duck 03:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Note that ABS-CBN is ruling the primetime slot based from Kantar Media. This page is not reliable as its ratings are based from a single rating provider AGB, which has faced many controversies about its accuracy.
  • This is not a website for Advertisers. The Ratings Section is somewhat Bias. There has been a reliable ratings source Nationally from AGB NEILSEN (NUTAM). The readers ought to know true popularity of a show or a network by showing the overall "National" ratings and not a "selective" rating datum.68.127.165.27 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok you need to have a source for this comment, otherwise it is your own opinion.68.127.165.27 21:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, the only news items that proclaim #1 in the Philippines are ABS-CBN press releases, since AGB Nielsen doesn't group Mega Manila and non-Mega Manila exclusively; non-Mega Manila is always splintered into the different cities and provinces, and are never grouped together as "rest of the Philippines." And even if the rest of the Philippines has a larger population than Mega Manila, Mega Manila may indeed have a larger market.
    • And not to mention the primary reason why ratings are published are for the advertisers themselves. --Howard the Duck 15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

According AGB Nelisen Media Research website they officially release the: http://www.agbnielsen.net/whereweare/dynPage.asp?lang=english&id=240&country=Philippines

MEGATAM which only include "Mega Manila",

MCTAM "AGB Nielsen Media Research also reports on three (3) metropolitan cities dubbed as the Metro City TAM (MCTAM). In addition to Metro Manila, TV viewing in Cebu City, Iloilo City and Davao City are included in the MCTAM"

NUTAM "which AGB Nielsen Media Research (Philippines) launched the country's first truly national urban television audience measurement panel in October 2006. Composed of 1,540 representative panel homes, NUTAM will cover about 90% of the total urban population with TV sets or about 37 million individuals age 2 and above in the country."

ABS-CBN releases Data from them (AGB) and not from their own source. AGB is a third party source and GMA is also a customer of AGB Nielsen. ALL are important to Advertisers. And you are wrong to say that rating are only for advertising sake. Many readers want to know the clear picture of the ratings throughout the Philippines. And advertisers do not certainly use this website as their main source of getting their ratings. They get that on the AGB website itself.

According to their website: http://www.agbnielsen.net/whereweare/dynPage.asp?lang=english&id=222&country=Philippines

CHANNEL SHARES ARE AS FOLLOWS (NUTAM)

  • MORINING-- ABS-35.5 GMA-39.6
  • NOOTIME-- ABS-49.1 GMA-35.7
  • AFTERNOON-- ABS-41.9 GMA-38.9
  • PRIMETIME-- ABS-43.3 GMA-37.6
  • LATENIGHT-- ABS-37.3 GMA-42.6

It turns out, ABS-CBN does lead in primetime "Nationwide". But this article says otherwise.

In the United States they do not publish any "Local Ratings" to newspaper, TV, Internet etc. Local ratings can be requested by local channels. "National Ratings" are published periodically instead in the media

Before you post the Mega Manila ratings solely, you should provide a direct quote from advertisers or companies that they only prioritize the "Mega Manila Ratings" over the "National Ratings". Otherwise, the comments made on the article would be suspected as POV. Because, how come GMA are investing time and money to expand provincially if they deemed only Mega Manila that only matters?

I say we should show everything for objectivity sake and NOT selecting data just to make them look good. We can say GMA lead in Mega Manila but we should also say that they still lagged Nationally. And besides your argument about the advertisers is irrelevant anyway and better yet it is POV since there are no source. Just based on your reasoning It just clear to me that you are bias to one station which is GMA.68.127.165.27 20:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

See, there really is no unified rating for the whole Philippines since it is still splintered into the different time of the day. The article consistenly says Mega Manila (unless someone else edited it.)
If you can show me one table for the whole Philippines, not splintered into time of the day and/or cities/regions, then it'll be fine. --Howard the Duck 03:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

NUTAM is "unified", it includes Metro Manila, Mega Manila, etc. etc. as they say it include 90% of TV viewers in the Philippines.

Regarding time,

??? um, it says in the article Mega Manila Ratings PRIME-TIME-- isn't that splintered?

And also that is how they usually do it, by time of the day.

I think what you are talking about or looking for is the top 50 highest rated shows "nationally" (NUTAM) on "Daytime" and "Nighttime" -- You can also view that on the AGB website. http://www.agbnielsen.net/whereweare/dynPage.asp?lang=english&id=222&country=Philippines

And through the ABS-CBN quarterly report. REMINDER: Although this is from ABS-CBN corporate website-- their source is from AGB Nielsen Media Research (This is where both ABS-CBN and GMA get thier information about ratings)

http://www.abscbn-ir.com/pdf/2007/Anlayst%20corner/ABS-CBN%201Q07%20Presentation%205.10.07.pdf

(NUTAM) 2nd Quarter report 2007

This is the overall ratings (regardless of time and place)

  • Audience Share
    • ABS-CBN 47% GMA 35%
  • Ratings
    • ABS-CBN 19% GMA 14%

If you really need a comprehensive report of the Philippine ratings then you have to apply and become a member on their website. But I think you must have some kind of Advertising affiliation or some sort.68.127.165.27 02:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The ABS-CBN quarterly report isn't the best reference we can use, especially in a GMA article (LOL-- a good way to balance this is to get GMA's statement on the same report). With that said, anything that isn't available publicly isn't also a good reference. To resolve this, the ratings agency should release national, un-splintered and raw ratings data to the public. --Howard the Duck 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I already showed you what you requested , again the DATA is from AGB Nelisen Media Research NOT from ABS-CBN themselves. Its on every page of the report.

The report also shows GMA leading in Mega-Manila in about 6% margin and in Metro Manila in about 1% margin. So it means the report is reliable and not bias because they are telling the truth.

The report is available publicly then why not use it? OR Why not use the sample Data in the AGB website itself?? Thats public.

And why aren't you complaining about the "Splintered" "Mega Manila Prime-Time Ratings" that is already on the article if you are so against it?

Again, I am showing you all the facts and figures directly from reliable sources and yet you are still not satisfied? And yet you are contended with the articles' source from an entertainment magazine website.

Again I have been suspecting a biased opinion from you right from the beginning and I do not expect any changes from you anytime soon. This will go nowhere. I just hope other "non-bias" people will read this.68.127.165.27 03:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on, don't suspect anything until you can prove it. If you can obtain GMA comments from the same AGN Nielsen data, then we don't have to worry about neutrality. It's like saying we should use PepsiCo's data obtained from a neutral source to say Coca-Cola has more bottles sold. Also, even if ABS-CBN leads in 3 out of 5 timeslots of the day doesn't mean that they're "#1" in the Philippines, isn't it? Nor does AGB Nielsen release publicly raw, unsplintered data to remove doubts once and for all what is "#1". --Howard the Duck 03:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I really think you are not making any sense, no offense.

Where does ABS-CBN and GMA officially get thier ratings report?? AGB Neilsen Media Research right?

What did ABS-CBN used on their report? AGB Neilsen Media research Data right?

What is the purpose of ABS 2Q 2007 report? for their business decision right?

Why would they falsified the Data report? Do you think they doctored their own report so that they can make themselves feel good?? This is a matter of loosing and gaining.

The point is ABS-CBN is using a NEUTRAL SOURCE via AGB. AGB Neilsen is Neutral because its a third party provider.

I am sure if I research more and found the GMA report they will also use the data coming from AGB Neilsen so what is the freaking difference?????

And I really do not understand your "unsplintered" data comments, its not even a word.

If you are talking about the overall shares/ratings and not the "unsplintered" ones, I already showed you.

(NUTAM) 2nd Quarter report 2007 Source:AGB Nelisen Media Research.

This is the overall ratings (regardless of time and place)

  • Audience Share
    • ABS-CBN 47% GMA 35%
  • Ratings
    • ABS-CBN 19% GMA 14%

You really don't have to explain yourself, sir, its just clear to me that you are bias towards GMA.68.127.165.27 04:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hahahaha, and I thought was the one who had bad arguments, and now you're accusing me. Easy way out, compadre?
Now if ask the editors at the The Coca-Cola Company article if they're willing to accept figures from PepsiCo, even though it may come from a neutral source, to see which sells more bottles? If you can find a GMA Network statement on the same AGN Nielsen report, then they'd balance each other out? I'd imagine you're good at hunting down numbers so if you managed to obtain AGB Nielsen's numbers from ABS-CBN, then you can certainly find a GMA one right? After all, these two companies may have different interpretations of the same thing, right?
It's not that hard, even though ABS-CBN's numbers may be true, it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't be using GMA's interpretation of the same data, right?
Now before you whine that I'm biased, it is certainly biased to use ABS-CBN's interpretation of the AGB Nielsen data when we don't present GMA's interpretation. So go hunt down that GMA interpretation and stop whining of me being biased, OK? --Howard the Duck 04:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. let me spell it out for you in a very simple way,

AGB Nielsen released this DATA: (NUTAM) 2nd Quarter report 2007 Source:AGB Nelisen Media Research.

Overall Nationwide (regardless of time and place)

  • Audience Share
    • ABS-CBN 47% GMA 35%
  • Ratings
    • ABS-CBN 19% GMA 14%

Now, both GMA and ABS-CBN officially get their information about ratings through AGB Neilsen Media Research. The Official provider in the Philippine Broadcast & Advertising industry.

So basically they use the same source.

Now how can GMA interpret the above data otherwise? tell me--- when it is very clear simple datum. Its Black and White, Its right their in front of you.

Tell me how can they interpret it differently??? How?

Its a very simple four numbers data from AGB Neilsen not ABS-CBN

so how???68.127.165.27 04:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep on repeating the same thing over and over again, just obtain GMA's interpretation of AGN Nielsen's numbers, it's not that hard, right?
A specific event can be interpreted differently by two different parties; for example, if a winless team suddenly defeats a championship contender, then they'd fell about themselves, on the other hand, their opponents would just dismiss it as another bump on the road. --Howard the Duck 05:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not making any sense anymore and keep on doing analogies which also not making any sense.

What event are you talking about? I think you need to make a better analogy.

Its SIMPLE four number-- black and white data.

Both GMA and ABS uses this.

You mean even though ABS-CBN is leading nationally according to the AGB DATA. GMA will dismiss it because they are not winning?? They will not believe it according to their "interpretation"?

Why is then ABS-CBN-- according in their report also shows that GMA is leading in Mega Manila? They showed plainly that GMA indeed lead in Mega Manila?

You are being hopeless68.127.165.27 05:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I seems you don't understand that in order to be balanced, we need to find a GMA source for that data. Or else it will be unbalanced. It doesn't matter if the data is the same, as I've said before, 2 parties may have different interpretations of a single event.
Now stop whining and start looking. --Howard the Duck 05:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh My, It is not an EVENT. Again Im just pointing out what it needs to be point out so that other readers will know.

You keep on saying different "interpretation" which does not making any sense at all. How can you interpret a clear and simple single data.

I am not whining-- its just sad to know that a bias person like you ran this place.

You will not change your mind Im sure-- even if I show you a Report from GMA, you will still look for something else, or some other reason-- maybe the "unsplintered" thingy.

Why not use the AGB Neilsen sample data as for now? instead?

No? Im sure.

because ABS-CBN also lead in that data?68.127.165.27 05:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, not an event, but data. The data used is a social science statistic, not as exact as the ones you'll get in a laboratory (physical science), that's why there'll always be different interpretations.
As for changing my mind, if they show the exact same data, then I'll personally rewrite that section, or you can do it yourself, but with only the ABS-CBN source won't cut it, we'd need a GMA source to balance things.
Would you use an NBC source to say that ABC is leading in the ratings in a CBS article?
So go search for that GMA source. You could have found it a long time ago if you were not whining here.
And biased? Wouldn't it be biased if we'd only use one sole source? --Howard the Duck 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, If you want to look for it then do it yourself. that is IF you are not really bias.

That is, IF you really wanted the truth. If you just gonna ignore it and not going to be proactive about it then you are biased. You want to see everything that would suit you.

I on the other hand already found 2 reliable sources and one from AGB website itself and yet you are still not satisfied. mmmm No wonder.

I already know the truth. I already explain it many times.

And please stop your analogies about getting sources from rival companies. Its not really helping.

We are NOT talking about a data coming from this side or that side. We are talking about a NEUTRAL DATA here that you are completely ignoring again and again and keep on insisting about "interpretation". Isnt AGB Neilsen interpretation enough?

And please don't preach about being "bias", Ive known all along who is. And I am not going to do all those unnecessary thing you have been telling me to do.68.127.165.27 05:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A neutral data coming from a possibly biased source? All know that I'm asking is a GMA source. It will really be awkward to say the least if we don't have a GMA side of things on that matter, isn't it? How did ABS-CBN interpret the data anyway?
So if you won't do it, then fine by me. No changes. Any changes done would be against WP:NPOV where the article's subject side isn't given. --Howard the Duck 05:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the report before saying about "interpretation" this "interpretation" that see it for yourself

Because they are showing DATA from AGB Nielsen "AS IT IS"68.127.165.27 05:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Show me a GMA reference and we'll talk again. --Howard the Duck 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you are BIAS. Not being proactive on an unsettle issue is being BIAS. Wha? Im the one that will do all the work just to satisfy you? I already found reliable--- sources what have you done so far???

Telling me about "interpretations"?

And do not intimidate me with that WP:NPOV thingy.

Oh.... is that mean you know better than me?? Is that mean you are right because you know how to link that??? scary. I don't care if you don't change it. I just want others to know that you are BIAS.

Ive tried to be reasonable from the beginning but Ive had it.

Sorry for the other readers but my patience just lost with this stupidity

What can a simple thing so hard to understand? Unless one is bias, Im done with this68.127.165.27 06:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see where Howard is coming from... we do need the perspective on GMA on this such as this... especially on an article about GMA Network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.88.193 (talk) 10:21, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

We only need the single data called the NUTAM Overall Nationwide Ratings and Share and not the whole "source" or "report" of ABS-CBN. Since we are not really presenting the whole "report" of ABS-CBN, the citation would not be biased because the single "neutral data" that we only need comes straight from AGB Nelisen Media Research itself.

It has not been changed by ABS-CBN-- otherwise the document will be LEGALLY falsified as it was released publicly. It does not require any other interpretation as howard has been suggesting-- Because it is a single data or datum not a "collection" of data.68.127.172.142 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ratings are irrelevant in this article because such information is highly dynamic and cannot be preserved as current information (unless the presentation itself is live/dynamic via web service). If that is not possible, it is more informative to briefly state the status of the competition perhaps backed with a brief explanation of the significance of the TV ratings system in the Philippines instead.--Mendz 06:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

-> (I agree with Mendz on this one, even GMA is quoting the NUTAM data now.) GMA's IR website is over at www.gmanetwork.comNixenzo 13:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Kapamilya" should be "Kapuso"

Observed as of this writing 9/5/2007 Manila time. Please kindly correct throughout the article. Perhaps, Wikipedia can investgate when this article was altered with this misinformation and/or perhaps also who did it. This was not the article's state the day before.--Mendz 06:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

can anybody place the latest resilt in the ratings wherein GMA shows higher ratings than abs!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.220.61 (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

GMA Network slogans

This is unencyclopedic, and it adds nothing to the article. I'll remove it if no one objects with a good reason. --Howard the Duck 12:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that DZBB-TV be merged to this article since the subject is the same station. Starczamora (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, several other network articles have different articles for the station and the company per se. See NBC and WNBC for an example. --Howard the Duck 13:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ABS-CBN is larger

According to asiaweek on its list of 1000 largest corporations, ABS-CBN is certainly a bigger network than GMA, mainly because, ABS-CBN holds several sub-networks, they also have the higher asset value and most of the biggest stars are in them. So I propose that my edit that GMA is second only, be approved on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.mi. shinley (talk • contribs) 03:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Asiaweek stopped publishing half-a-decade ago, I think. --Howard the Duck 04:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

P 2.3 billion earnings

I added this to sum up the paragraph with major earning of 2007: It earned P 2.3 billion in 2007.www.gmanews.tv/video, GMA Network earned P2.3B in 2007, 05/21/2008 --Florentino floro (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

GMA Network owned by American Broadcasting Company?

Does ABC really owned a portion of GMA (Then RBS) way back in the 1960's? I thought that "Uncle Bob" Stewart is the sole owner of the station... -Danngarcia 19:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

yes.. it is quarter owned by ABC before the martial law... which forced stewart and ABC to let loose of gma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.1.11 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

i was also shocked when i saw this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapuso11 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:QTV-TV.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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Station Place

The creator of this page should put information about where to locate the stations for more convinience.Manager0916 (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

TV Schedule

Isn't this suppose to be the TV guide for GMA? Where's the schedule and the information about the shows? There was a schedule here before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.168.178 (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

sino nagdelete ng logo ng MyGMA.COM.PH?

Read {{db-copyvio}}. –Howard the Duck 14:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

made from a scratch naman yun.madali lang naman gayahin sa photoshop yung mga font ng GMA. yung puso lang and na copy-paste pero yung iba tinype ko mismo

Pinatangal po ng content manager ng mygma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.168.178 (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Split GMA Network

It’s been long overdue, the Wikipage of certain broadcast companies in the Philippines must be split into two separate units, the corporate and the broadcast entities. GMA Network Wikipage should be split into GMA Network Inc. (as the company) and GMA Network (as the television channel). See, NBC and NBCUniversal; CBS and CBS Corporation; Fox Broadcasting Company and Fox Entertainment Group (News Corp.); American Broadcasting Company and The Walt Disney Company and the likes. Thanks. Webwires (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

See DZBB-TV –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for replying. I'm aware about the Wikipage of DZBB-TV unfortunately entries at GMA Network complicate and lack identity. Information presented is mixtures of corporate and brand entities, which are dissimilar to one another. It is much easier if we move information about television to GMA Network and corporate material move to GMA Network Inc. Thanks. Webwires (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
If we're talking about the programming (90% of this article) those can go to DZBB-TV as essentially the other local GMA stations carry DZBB-TV's feed except for local news and some rescheduled programs. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Another thing. Can we use GMA Network Wikipage for its brand entity instead DZBB-TV and GMA Network Inc. for its corporate unit? Since GMA Network is much more identify, as the TV network rather than DZBB-TV and use the Disambiguation? Thanks again. Webwires (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
As per WP:NC, when people refer to "GMA Network" they refer to the company (the TV channels, radio stations and the websites) rather than the channel per se. I'd have no problem placing the content of the programming stuff to the DZBB-TV article. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi HTD, since we are not using call signs anymore to name television stations in the Philippines generally, network or station names should be used as per WP:NC. Nowadays, people refers GMA Network Inc. as the company, GMA Network as the TV station, RGMA to its radio network, DZBB to its radio station based in Manila and GMA News Online for its web. I hope using GMA Network for its brand unit will merit my suggestion. We can always use Disambiguation to avoid confusion.. Thanks again. Webwires (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I meant as a collective unit, when you refer to "GMA Network" you refer to all three (also including the film production and recording company). For example, when you say ____ is a GMA Network contract star, you refer to all units not just any of the units. Now, when you refer to "GMA-7" either it's the Manila station (most of the time) or the stock exchange ticker symbol (rarely). If anything, Wikipedia article names do get to be affixed by an "Inc." at the end. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Now that I mentioned it, when people refer to "GMA-7" they refer to the company that owns the TV and radio networks, website, film studio and recording company. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Branding section

Branding starts from name change, all the way to logos and slogans and other entries aims to determine an important and distinguish presence in the market that attracts and retains viewerships. Branding may comprise historical chronology or events for the entity, thus it should follow after. “GMA Radio Television Arts,” “The Rainbow Network” and “The Kapuso Network” should belong to “Branding of GMA Network” even though entries have historical in nature that is significant to the Wikipage. In due time, parts of the entries will be rewritten in order to comply with Wikipedia standards. Webwires (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Your arrangement is VERY confusing. Those three sections should be under the "History" section, not the "Branding" section. What happened is if you read the article from the top, the history section only tells the Bob Stewart era. The "Branding" section should contain the "logos" and "slogans", as the section header suggests. -WayKurat (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, if my composition doesn’t merit, it is much more confusing to read entries with no substances at all. In the first place, entries posted have historical significant and includes branding, mixed together. It should be split again. Section headers insinuate branding, thus it should belong to “Branding” unless section headers replace by a more proper segment, like using “Years (dates)” which will definitely fall under history. Unfortunately, up to this date, no one tries to rewrite the article in order to be more informative and plain to understand without missing the value of it. Some entries have irrelevant issues but still part of the Wikipage. As what I have said, in due time, parts of the entries will be rewritten in order to comply with the standards. We’re not competing to each other. If others are only here just for the heck of editing entries without merit then, we as Wikipedian have the responsibility to correct it. Webwires (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion should've been allowed to progress before such unilateral, wholesale actions were made. I know WP:BEBOLD but there was no WP:CONSENSUS to do what had been done. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Affiliates

I think this section must go since no references are cited to back up it and irrelevant to the Wikipage due to the fact it act like a lists or repositories of loosely associated topics which falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY and does not add merit. Anyone can add an affiliate (define: Affiliate station, Affiliated company) without verifying it (must conforms with WP:Verify) and some so-called companies published here do not exist today. Webwires (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a section at GMA's annual financial report and the PSE website about the affiliates and subsidiaries (they are different). Curiously, there is no separate company for the unit that produces radio and TV programs, implying that GMA Network (the subject of the article) and GMA Network, Inc. are the same. As for how that affects the relationship between GMA Network/GMA Network, Inc. and the subsidiaries and affiliates, the subsidiaries are wholly owned companies, while the affiliates are partly-owned ones. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

First air date

The supplied date is somewhat leading. This is a page for the Television Network not the radio network. It should be change to October 29, 1961 immediately or else it will mislead people .-Hollyckuhno (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorta merger/move/RFD proposal: Are GMA Network and GMA Network, Inc. separate persons?

It appears that GMA Network, Inc. and GMA Network are not separate persons. See for example, gmanetwork.com/about -- it doesn't mention anything about "GMA Network Inc", the subject of this article; instead, when it mentions "GMA Network, Inc" it refers to the conglomerate, not it's media unit (if it exists juridically.

This means that this article is made up. Thankfully, there are remedies:

  • If we're referring to the units that are into TV production, the content of this article should go to DZBB-TV, as virtually all of the programs are produced by this channel. Subsequently, the "Programming", "Controversies" and perhaps the "Divisions" sections would go there. As for the "History" and "Branding" sections, it'll go to the GMA Network, Inc. article.

Therefore:

–HTD 16:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion thread on the creator of the GMA Network, Inc. article regarding this issue on his talk page (User:Webwires). See [1] -WayKurat (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Does your suggestions merit something in general or limiting its scope again? Therefore, as you cited, the articles of CBS Corporation, NBCUniversal, Fox Entertainment Group, The Walt Disney Company and Discovery Communications should have been moved, transferred or redirected to CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC and Discovery Channel respectively. Consequently, CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC etc. should also been moved, transferred or redirected to their respective call names. Webwires (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to be used here. In any case, we don't know if the TV networks and the holding companies are separate persons; if they are then they should be separate, if they are not, then the subject of those articles, like this one, are imaginary. –HTD 03:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
First of all I'm not the creator of GMA Network, Inc. Wikipage. Imaginary? Then the valuable information stated in their respective Wikipages as you fondly called subject so to speak, whoever behind GMA Network as the brand name (TV network) are created by the imaginations of people working at GMA Network Inc. as the parent company? This might interest the reading public: Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. I intentionally expanded the said policy. Webwires (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
What more valid reason should be used other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and related guidelines when in fact, the above mentioned Wikipages are substantial according to other Wikipedian and again, singled out Philippine-based Wikipages specifically GMA. What are the obvious reason why other Wikipages are valid and Philippine-based are not. Are there different rules aside from Wikipedia policy and guidelines? I hope we are not into Kapusos and Kapamilyas here. Webwires (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about ABS-CBN, they're next. I just don't like doing simultaneous stuff since your attention will be divided.
What I'd like to know is if GMA Network and GMA Network, Inc. are different persons. If they aren't, one has to go. In simpler, layman's terms, does GMA Network, Inc. have a daughter company/subsidiary/affiliate called "GMA Network? –HTD 14:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Your uncertainties are already been answered. There’s no need to elaborate or complicated the understated inquiry since I have already provided examples to your never-ending reservations toward GMA Network (as the TV network) and GMA Network, Inc. (as the company) and the likes. I don’t want to assume that someone is greater knowledge than the people behind the Wikipages I have mentioned above (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX as the TV networks and CBS Corporation, NBCUniversal, The Walt Disney Company, Fox Entertainment Group as the company) etc. That someone is more articulate to whatever Wikipages displeases someone and beating around the bush tactic to benefit. My final word, quote I dunno, several other network articles have different articles for the station and the company per se. See NBC and WNBC for an example. --Howard the Duck 13:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC) unquote Webwires (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
What has NBC and NBC Universal got to do with GMA Network and GMA Network being separate persons? NBC/NBC Universal and the hypothetical GMA Network/GMA Network Inc are different, so they can't be applied to one another. It doesn't make sense. It's like saying University of the Philippines Diliman and University of the Philippines Integrated School are different persons because De La Salle University and De La Salle Zobel are when they aren't.
NBC and NBC Universal being different has nothing to do with GMA Network being a daughter company/subsidiary/affiliate of GMA Network Inc. Probably because NBC and NBC Universal are two entirely different persons. The questions is: are GMA Network and GMA Network Inc are different persons? Answering "Yes, because NBC and NBC Universal are" is not a valid answer. –HTD 15:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Reboot

OK, let's get to the most basic question: are GMA Network, Inc. and GMA Network two different persons? One way to tell that they are different is that while GMA Network and GMA Network, Inc. are related, the two have two different sets of owners. For example, GMA Network may be co-owned by GMA Network, Inc with another company. Another is GMA Network can be GMA Network, Inc.'s subsidiary: this makes it a distinct person. Perhaps GMA Network can be a division of GMA Network, Inc., that can be marginal case for it to be not merged. What are the proofs? Annual reports, tax records, court cases, anything. That's all I'm asking. Citing examples from other companies are not proofs since they don't prove that the two are separate persons. –HTD 15:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Regional Stations

I think it would be better to include the Regional Stations of GMA Network. I heard in the news that there is a newly-opened station in Ilocos Sur or the GMA Ilocos. And the reporter mentioned that there are 6 Regional Stations Nationwide. What are they? jmarkfrancia (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Philippines Digital Standard is ISDB-T. Not DVB-T

NTC has dropped DVB-T in favor of ISDB-T as the standard for Philippine Broadcasting. Please change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.159.192 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

    • It is also noteworthy to place that GMA is proposing to use the DVB-T European Standard for its digitalization despite the fact that ISDB-T is the Philippine's Digital Standard. On the other hand, its main rival ABS-CBN is bound to transition to ISDB-T.
    • Whilst digitalization of content is a very important investment, GMA network only invested 600 million pesos for this whilst ABS-CBN, the country's industry leader, is investing 200 billion pesos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.64.76 (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

GMA Network 3D logos

File:GMA Network 3D logo.jpg
GMA Network 3D Logo (1)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markkim77 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on GMA Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on GMA Network. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on GMA Network. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

I'm opening this discussion to clear up what really is GMA's official logo. For years, they are using this one, the 2D version of their logo. User:Kazaro changed the logo this week and replaced it with the 3D version, saying that this logo has been used by GMA Network since 2011. The argument here is that GMA uses the 2D logos on their official documents and their websites gmanetwork.com and gmanetwork/news. The 3D logo is used mostly on their promotional material and as the network "bug" on their broadcasts.

We need to have consensus what logo should be used for this article and the GMA Network (company) article. -WayKurat (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

WayKurat, You can see the past logo by clicking here 1. As you can see the logo I provided were presence this year. The logo were used are the 3D version as they launch in 2011, as you can see the logo were placed on the top right hand corner on television and also to their YouTube videos.Kazaro (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there any people who will response about this discussion? Kazaro (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment The Philippine Stock Exchange-listed company has this as its company logo. Is that 3D? I really have no preference here as i dont watch a lot of local tv hehe. Probably the GMA Network (company) can use the same logo that's shown in PSE website.--RioHondo (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@RioHondo:, yes that's the 3D logo. The GMA Network website uses the flat 2D logo on a regular basis as well. Kazaro wanted to totally remove the 2D logo and replace it with the 3D logo. That is why I am raising a consensus what version of the GMA logo should be used on their main articles: GMA Network and GMA Network (company). -WayKurat (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I see. Definitely the article has to show both logos, one in infobox and the other somewhere towards the end paragraph of history, with the caption (Year) GMA logo still used occassionally or something. Seeing as their international channel GMA Pinoy TV and news channel GMA News TV use the same logo in PSE, maybe that's really the standard? But if the main channel's website shows 2D, we can stick to 2D only for the main channel.--RioHondo (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
For the meantime, I am restoring the SVG 2D logo, the original logo used in this article before Kazaro messed up everything. Not only he disrupted this article but a bunch GMA Network related articles (see ANI report against Kazaro.
The way I see it, the 2D flat logo is the one primarily used for official documents of the network, the 3D variant is used as a secondary logo (for posters, TV bug, etc.). -WayKurat (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The source has given enough information, the website shows this logo at PSE. The PSE has proven they used this logo and the user you were referring to is already blocked and can't even do about it. 72.234.48.133 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: The 3D logo of GMA is just a 3D rendering of the original 2D logo. The designs of the two logos are identical except for the 3D rendering. My conclusion is that, for documentation purpose of the article, the 2D version should be use. Hollyckuhno (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on GMA Network. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GMA Network. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

"Scenarios Inc." listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Scenarios Inc.. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 29 January 2020 (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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021

Protection template is missing. 120.29.78.202 (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done VictorTorres2002 (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GMA_Network/Archive_1&oldid=1136352624"