Jump to content

Talk:HBO/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

?

the second paragraph is confusing. Can someone clarify this for readers not familiar with broadcasting terms. ike9898 16:26, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

user base

where the hell do they get the "The network is currently received in roughly one-third of households in the United States" estimate? i work at a cable company, and 1/3 of the customer i speak to sure don't have HBO... Plonk420 22:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Time Warner lists the subscriber base as 37-39 million... not sure how many total cable/satellite subscribers there are though. Treznor 03:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
So they don't know if they have two millions subscribers more or less? If this where true i wouldn't like to own their shares!!--84.152.244.81 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Since their subscriber base is always changing, the 2 million gap could represent the figure they're ussally within, with each end being there peak high and low. For example, before the Soprano's final, they probably were closer 39 million subscribers, but the day after 37 million subscribers.

As for the 1/3 estimate, according to Cable Tv advertising bureau in 2005 (most recent figure) just under 93,000 homes have cable. So "roughly one-third of households in the United States" is a correct statement. Rawboard 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because 1/3 of homes have cable does not mean they have HBO.--99.177.250.140 (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

HBO logotype

Was the current HBO logo introduced in 1981?

The current HBO logo is a modification of the logo as it was first introduced in 1975. The current logo was introduced in the fall of 1980--67.54.239.90 02:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

HBO slogans

HBO slogans is a recent article which I'm not sure if the content is accurate. If it is, it should be merged here - I don't think it's worth a separate article. Rd232 talk 20:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

"HBO also manages sister network Cinemax, which focuses more on movies and less on original series. Cinemax (or "Skinamax" and "Sinamax" in some circles) has been accused of being an outlet for soft-core pornography during late night hours."

Is this truly NPOV? Thoughts?

Have you ever watched Showtime and Cinemax after midnight? Before porn was readily available on the Internet, that's how a whole generation of people got their porn. I wonder if today, the channels run these for tradition's sake. Sierraoffline444 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

First movie?

Does anyone know what the very first movie ever shown on HBO was, and when it aired (after the hockey game listed as the very first show on HBO?) Also what movie has been shown the most number of times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.37.110 (talk • contribs)

"Sometimes a Great Notion" Rawboard 20:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor clarification

Just so you're aware, I know for a fact that HBO and Cinemax are available in Asia via local satellite/cable packages (they were a lifeline in China) and that Showtime is available in the Middle East. Perhaps the "available" section in the infobox should be changed to "international"? Daduzi 16:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not available in most of the world...220.253.63.25 14:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Marketshare?

Howmany percent of the American households are receiving HBO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.244.81 (talk • contribs)

A little under 40% Rawboard 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

HBO Home Video logo info removed

The HBO Home Video logo info has been removed.....this article is on HBO as a service. The info should be reinstated in its own section. --67.54.239.90 02:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? In a seperate article? If so, due diligence requires you, the person who deleted it, to create the new article for the deleted information. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Joint ventures

The last paragraph or so of the History section treats "HBO" as a TW division rather than the channel/s or brand that it is elsewhere in the article. The material would be better placed in an article on TW's cable TV interests. 220.253.63.25 14:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Profanity

Troubleshooter

Really?Kyle Burris 03:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the recent news concerning the ceo need to be the second headline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.43.188 (talk • contribs)

Well, I don't think so. I hadn't even heard of it outside the context of this article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

HBO--Caribbean is coming.

The only-- reason I post this, is it will be gone in a day or two.

Article: HBO Caribbean coming soon - BY ASHA JAVEED Date: Tuesday 17th July, 2007 Source: www.guardian.co.tt - The Trinidad and Tobago Guardian newspaper

Link: http://www.guardian.co.tt/business2.html

A new HBO station—tailored for the Caribbean—will likely end the wrangling between cable operator Flow and HBO Latin America.

Last week, HBO Latin America Group announced its new HBO channel after two weeks of successful trials for islands like Curacao, Barbados, Bonaire, St Lucia, Aruba, St Martin, and T&T.

The digital, 100 per cent English language channel would air international blockbusters and the most acclaimed United States and global series, and major boxing matches as well.

“HBO exists because of and for its audience. That’s why we decided to create an entertainment product that would completely satisfy the Caribbean audience’s needs, by offering a more attractive and diversified product that is tailor made to their interests and needs,” said Gustavo Grossman, vice-president and general manager, HBO Networks in a release issued by the company last week.

The new programming is expected to begin this month.

John Reid, president and chief operating officer of Flow, observed that its pursuit of a contractual agreement with HBO is public.

“We have stated on numerous occasions that our discussions with HBO have largely centered on demanding our customers receive a network that first and foremost has 100 per cent English-content as well as the quality and variety of programming for which HBO is renowned,” Reid said.

“As a result of our efforts and those of other cable television operators in the region, HBO is launching an all-English network specifically designed for the Caribbean market.

“We were very pleased to note from HBO’s recent press release that HBO has committed to providing Hollywood blockbusters, series and special events," Reid said.

“Our current negotiations have reached an important stage and we are confident that we will soon achieve resolution to this important outstanding issue,” he added.[-End] CaribDigita 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Just now, "applying" should have been "implying" :) -Mike Payne (T • C) 07:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Network Motto

Perhaps the network motto "It's not TV. It's HBO." should be added to the network info box? This phrase is widely known and sums up the whole strategy behind the network. Mrowlinson 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia, this includes HBO shows. --Maniwar (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Move suggestion.

I suggest we move this to Home Box Office because most of all Wikipedia's articles are corporate names such as Game_Show_Network, United Parcel Service 9potterfan (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Free channel?

Wasn't HBO a free channel once? 98.226.32.129 (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

HBO has always been a premium channel. They have "free previews" (not as often as they did before) at times on weekends. Also, some apartment complexes did (some may still do) include it as part of basic service to apartment residents. Msw1002 (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
When I signed up for CMA Cable in Pahrump, NV, back in 2006, there wasn't that many channels overall for the service (15, if that), and no HD. HBO, Showtime and Cinemax (all main channel West feeds) were part of the basic package until early 2009. Since then, we now have 10 useless HD channels, 50 digital channels, easy-to-descramble HBO on ch. 2 analog, and 50 regular channels. (The HBO analog can be descrambled by just tuning the channel on an old TV with the round channel changer.) So, basically, it depends on the cable company providing the service, or the location thereof. After all, somebody has to eat the cost for HBO in it's shown. Sierraoffline444 (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
What a fascinating story!PacificBoy 18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

HBO Family doesn't need a separate article

HBO Family doesn't need a separate article. If just a spinoff of HBO made for kids. Just because a channel has its own website doesn't mean it needs a separate article, its still part of the HBO package. I merged the info into this article, which is more appropriate. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I also merged the HBO Signature and Festival articles into this article.TomCat4680 (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Jewish subculture

Certain writers have described the existence of a Jewish subculture on HBO, due to the fact that many of the network's actors have an acknowledged Jewish identity. I don't mean to mention this in a negaitve or discriminatory way, I just though that it might be deserving of a small footnote somewhere. [2][3][4] ADM (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Other than being Jewish-owned via Warner Bros., I don't see anything overall Jewish about HBO. What I mean, the Sopranos? Big Love? There's Catholicism and Mormonism there, respectively. I don't see HBO running Genocide, Holocaust, or War and Remembrance over and over again, if at all, so there's not that much Judaism there. Sure, the actors and actresses in the movies might or are Jewish, but then, so what? I don't get this Jewish subculture that you're getting about and linked to. I think you're fishing for a topic. Sierraoffline444 (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Sierra. What kind of footnote would you propose? "A bunch of Jews work for HBO"? Any way you slice it, your idea does sound a little "negaitive [sic] or discriminatory."PacificBoy 18:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Actual running time of HBO original series

I'm not sure I trust the HBO listed running time when it's exactly 60 minutes. Does anyone know of a source that has gone through and actually clocked how long they are? Cnota 07:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This can vary from episode to episode, since HBO doesn't have to worry about allocating time for commercial spots. Some good examples are Real Time with Bill Maher, Curb Your Enthusiasm and boxing. They can be on time, end earlier or run over the allotted time. The best estimate for time would be as is shown on the Wiki articles (30 minutes or 60 minutes), whatever the time block it is scheduled. Msw1002 (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am proposing that the article "List of HBO one-hour dramatic television series" be (at least) merged with the article "List of programs broadcast by HBO". There is a noticable redundancy between the two articles as the article proposed for merger features the same information as the article that this article is being proposed to be merged into has. I have already placed a notice about this on the talk page for "List of HBO one-hour dramatic television series", but I also placed it on the main article's talk page to make sure an opinion or concensus be reached, in case very few Wikipedia users visit the other talk page. TVtonightOKC (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. No reason for 2 articles with duplicate information. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree It would best listed under List of programs broadcast by HBO. One location. Msw1002 (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Take Two

It turns out that Cinemax and Festival weren't HBO's first spinoff channels. The article from HighBeam Research I am linking here (which was published by Multichannel News in September 1990) says that HBO launched a channel called Take Two, a short-lived "mini-pay" cable network in the late 1970s. Can anyone provide any additional information about this Take Two network? [5] - Note: the link is for a site that requires a registered free trial or monthly or annual membership to view, I viewed this via a 7-day free trial. (TVtonightOKC (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

HBO intro soundbite.

The soundbite before the introduction to programmes by HBO uses the famous VIACOM programme end (not including the voice over of the word viacom) Viacom is the parent company of TimeWarner who are inturn a parent of Viacom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.198.187 (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a similarity in the "hum" between the two, but they're not the same. As for your comment that "Viacom is the parent company of TimeWarner who are inturn [sic] a parent of Viacom," HBO is a division of TimeWarner. Viacom has nothing to do with either company; it's a direct rival of TimeWarner.PacificBoy 18:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A Visit From The Goon Squad To Become Series

Deadline's Nikki Finke (April 20/11): Jennifer Egan's A Visit From The Goon Squad won the Pulitzer Prize, and she cited the HBO series The Sopranos as her inspiration. Now, Egan has closed a deal with to develop her sprawling tale into a TV series. Groundswell's Michael London will be executive producer and Jocelyn Hays Simpson will be co-exec producer. Egan will be a creative consultant.

The book was published last summer by Knopf and focuses on a coterie of characters first introduced as they orbit the world of punk rock in 1980s San Francisco, CA. Their lives are explored for the next 30 or so years, with interlocking stories that deal as much with changes in the lives of the characters as it does changes in technology. Egan uses unorthodox methods to tell her tale. One chapter is about how, in 2015, babies use touch screens to download music they like. Another chapter is written as a PowerPoint presentation by a 12-year-old girl, and the subject is famous rock songs that have pauses in the middle. During the chapter, the teen reveals much about her life. The Pulitzer committee described the book as "an inventive investigation of growing up and growing old in the digital age, displaying a big-hearted curiosity about cultural change at warp speed."

The deal was in the works before Egan won the Pulitzer, but her reps at ICM just closed with HBO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.246.237 (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I added this to List of programs broadcast by HBO. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

American Gods Being Adapted

Deadline's Nikki Finke (April 14/11): HBO has begun talks to acquire the Neil Gaiman novel American Gods to be developed into another fantasy series. The project was brought to HBO by Playtone partners Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman, and it was brought to them by Robert Richardson. The plan is for Richardson and Gaiman to write the pilot together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.246.237 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I added this to List of programs broadcast by HBO. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Initialism versus acronym

The first time I knowingly read the word initialism was when I read this article. Where has it been hiding all my life. I checked on Google. There are less than half a million listings for the word 'initialism' - my spell checker doesn't even recognise it - but more than eighty one million for the word 'acronym'. What is it with Wikipedia that brings people crawling out of the woodwork determined to make every sentence as obscure as they possibly can? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

HBO isn't an acronym. An acronym is when you can say the shortened version without pronouncing the letters themselves (i.e. NASA or OPEC, they're almost a separate words). HBO is simply an abbreviation. However, I don't think "initialism" is a word either (my spell checker doesn't recognize it) so I rephrased the opening line. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Details on the business model and independence from Nielsen ratings

The following source gives very interesting details. Could anyone please expand the article by integration this essential information?

Home Box Office v. HBO

Can someone please explain why the article was moved from Home Box Office which I believe is what it was since the article was first created to HBO? IMHO HBO should be a disambiguation page due to the fact that there are other companies/organizations that use HBO and this article should be moved back to Home Box Office which is its proper name. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

HBO GO international

HBO GO is available in a number of European markets but the section about HBO GO mentions nothing about this. Is this supposed to be covered by the general 'International' section? The Seventh Taylor (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It probably would be best to add this under the individual international HBO areas such as the HBO Europe or HBO Netherlands articles and not under this one. Msw1002 (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Citations Not Needed For Common Knowledge....? Skinemax?

So, I was under the impression that citations were not necessary when a piece of information was considered "common knowledge." And today I find myself wondering just how "common" a particular piece of data has to be, before we consider it fair game to print without citation.

I am writing in reference to this passage of the article:


"...but the network subsequently become known among its subscribers for airing softcore adult films and series during the late night hours,[citation needed]"


This is a reference to HBO's "Companion Network" Cinemax. And I suggest this is very much common knowledge, and therefore may not need a citation. Thought I suppose HOW common, may be a matter for debate.

Allow me to give my personal perspective on this:


1- We have the colloquial term "SKINemax," a portmanteau word combining "skin" and "cinemax," an obvious reference to what one can see on cinemax, nameably "skin" e.g., "nudity."

2- This has so long been common knowledge, I was well aware of this fact as a pre-pubescent child in the late 80's, early 90's

3- Cinemax has even acknowledged that they've become known for this, and have used names for this programming block, such as "Cinemax After Dark." If overly rigid citation fanatics are really desperate to cite something, this would be a good place to look.

4- Just to be certain I wasn't being unreasonable with this, I did check in with a couple friends, including my bookworm student-of-culture girlfriend, who agreed with me. If anyone here disagrees, I'd love to hear your reasoning.

24.34.63.39 (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing discussion of criticism and controversy

This is a very positive one-sided article about the network but for fairness and to preserve WP:NPOV it should also acknowledge the ongoing controversy and criticism over adult content on the channel. From the widely-circulated parody video "It's not porn, it's HBO" to content controversies regarding shows like Game of Thrones and Girls to the recent controversy over the filming of sex scenes for the upcoming Westworld series. And it's not just one-off issues. When Sesame Street was purchased by HBO a number of parental watchdog groups threw a fit. Even the Captain Midnight scenario is omitted except for a link to another article. I'm not saying we should bash or do agenda-pushing (WP:NPOV remember), but I'm sure there is ample non-trivial sources available to generate a section. SAG-AFTRA for example issued official statements re: Westworld, and there's plenty of media coverage regarding the reaction to HBO buying Sesame Street. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

out of the closet?

Time Warner Cable seems to present HBO as "groundbreaking and acclaimed programming for the LGBT community" (that's on screen at the channel itself, if you haven't bought the subscription to the HBO package). This caught me by surprise. Googling "hbo lgbt community" didn't yield much. Anyone in the know ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

slogan

Isn't HBO slogan-It not TV,it HBO Arga the Impaler (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with HBO Now

HBO Now article small and poorly written; directly relates to regular HBO service   Pariah24 ┃ ☏   19:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

No. The main article is already well over 100K (the point where article splitting should be considered per WP:SPLIT), it would not be wise to merge it. The size of HBO Now is also not small enough to consider merging. If it is poorly written, then improve it, bad writing is not an argument for merging. Hzh (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Readable prose size is 66 kB. Code does not matter. I honestly don't understand the drawbacks of long articles. Most of the arguments I find in the editing guidelines are pretty silly e.g. "reader attention span." Length ought not to be an issue for something that is well-written and well organized.   Pariah24 ┃ ☏   01:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
60kB is the point where you should think about splitting. For some people it's about the technical limits. You may not notice it if your internet connection is fast, but it will be noticeable if your internet connection is slow. It simply takes longer to load. If you object to the suggestion, then do take it up in its talk page, here is not the place to discuss the issue. I'd also suggest reading WP:MERGEREASON. HBO NOw is clearly a subtopic of HBO, therefore not the same thing as HBO (significant part of the article's content is different) and none of your stated reasons apply to merging. If you consider HBO Now a topic not important enough to warrant its own article, then that is a different discussion, and you can start a article for deletion discussion. Hzh (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I oppose the merge per Hzh's comments; the page is too big already. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:A048:C7CF:F614:250D (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sister channels

I opened a debate at Template_talk:Infobox_television_channel#What_exactly_is_the_intent_of_the_.22sister_channels.22_parameter.3F on the topic in general, and nobody stepped up to defend the idea that "sister channels are anything owned by the same company", but I see I was reverted again.

@Pariah24: Even with the definition you give... which is totally unreferenced in that article anyway... HBO is a company. It has a CEO, it has its own divisions, earnings reports, etc. Home Box Office, Inc. runs two channels: HBO & Cinemax (and the timeshift / variant services, e.g. HBO Latino, HBO Family, Cinemax 2, whatever.). The corporate parent is far less relevant. There isn't any coordination between HBO & CNN & TBS. Turner Classic Movies shows movies they have the rights to but HBO doesn't, while HBO shows movies they have the rights to but TCM doesn't. They are unrelated except in the sense of having the same corporate ownership. If hypothetically Time Warner was just one eccentric rich guy who'd invested a lot of stock in all of these channels, would it be more obvious that they aren't really that related?

Also, just as it's silly to link all Time Warner channels together, look at the likes of NBCUniversal#Units. Do you think it's "useful" as you put it to list everything on this list as a sister channel to everything else? Even if Telemundo, SyFy, and MSNBC never share any content and don't work together? SnowFire (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue here is you are trying to change the definition of an established term because you think it should have that definition. It doesn't matter if they share content or not. It matters that they are owned by the same organization. You can find many instances of it being used this way: [6] [7] [8] Pariah24 (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of semantics, the potential usefulness of having the information there outweighs any kind of supposed necessary adherence to a specific interpretation of a term that isn't even listed in any major dictionaries. If it actually had a concrete, agreed-upon usage I could see the problem, but I don't see anything invalid this usage. Readers may not have realized so many channels are owned by the same people, and they may not be inclined to delve deeper into more articles to find that out. The info should be there for them. Pariah24 (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
If it really bothers you that much then I propose that the Sister channel parameter Template:infobox television channel be renamed to something like Related channels or Channels in network, and a parameter called Subsidiaries (like infobox organization has) be added where Cinemax can be listed. I'd do it myself but I'm not an admin or template editor. Pariah24 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure the established term means what I described above. Your evidence is evidence of my point, actually: the first link is to a Wikipedia-mirror "book" (and yes, Wikipedia is bad about this for a reason that a self-proclaimed deletionist should know; all it takes is a small number of people who see a vaguely related channel as "missing" to add it, and someone noticing that it actually does more harm than good is rarer). The second & third link describe *actual sister channels*, which is exactly what I think should be in the article: channels that can move content between them as they see fit. TNT & TBS both used to have "Turner" in their names, after all, and they really did coordinate programming & lineups. Do you have any evidence that HBO swaps programming with The Cartoon Network? Because they don't, to my knowledge.

Re "usefulness": But that's exactly what I'm trying to get at, too. Look, regardless of what terminology you or I want to use, it is indisputably true that HBO is "more" related to Cinemax than Turner Classic Movies. Maybe TCM still qualifies as a sister channel, maybe it doesn't, but there's a major difference here. The next question is: what serves the infobox better? A gigantic list of every other channel that isn't ACTUALLY related? Or the few channels that do mix & match content between them? Again, the "Same corporate parent" definition will lead to a list 40 entries long for the likes of channels owned by NBCUniversal, many of whom are totally unrelated. If users are truly interested in this, they can click the "parent" field of the Infobox and see there.

If "sister channel" is a problematic name, we can change it, although I'm not sure "subsidary" is the correct term. A&E and The History Channel aren't subsidiaries of each other from your links above, for example. I'm open to suggestions on what to call it, I just don't want to have a field that is the current misleading list. There's lots of true but trivial facts out there; Infoboxes should keep to relevant data.

Checking, I see you already launched an edit request on the template. Can you respond to the comments immediately above it first? SnowFire (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire: My apologies, I did the Google Books check quickly and didn't realize I was pulling from some BS Wikipedia compilation. So I get it, the table I was using as a source just came from here. I did a little more searching and honestly it doesn't really look like it has a concrete definition. Sister station is a much older and concrete term and sister channel appears to just be a spin-off of that word. As far as I know sister station has always meant any radio stations owned by the same people, but not necessarily broadcasting the same content. The fact that it's a neologism is most likely the reason people are trying to add or subtract channels from the article all the time. There's no reliable and verifiable thing to point to that establishes how the term should be used. Pariah24 (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Responded on the template talk page, as I think my comments are a bit more general than HBO-specific. SnowFire (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@SnowFire: I went ahead and opened an RfC to encourage a third opinion Template talk:Infobox television channel#l30 RfC about sister channels Pariah24 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on HBO. 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) 19:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on HBO. 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) 05:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HBO/Archive_1&oldid=1100448214"