Talk:DirecTV/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Information on smart cards needed

No mention of smart cards? Would it be permissible to also include a timeline for when each access card was introducted, when it was superceeded, and finaly when that card became usless? (intigration into the normal timeline as well) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.208.245.134 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 March 2005 (UTC).

Spelling for DIRECTV

The article spelling for DIRECTV should be changed throughout this article. Although many people commonly use the CamelCase spelling for the satellite company (i.e.: DirecTV), the company has always maintained the official spelling as DIRECTV, all capital letters. Since "DirecTV" is a common spelling of the company, perhaps this alternate spelling should be mentioned under General Information, 2nd pargraph along with the other common DIRECTV abbrivations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thehedgehog (talk • contribs) 16:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

Regarding trademarks, our Manual of Style permits the conditional use of CamelCase (and DirecTV qualifies), but not the use of pure uppercase.
"Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment:
  • avoid: REALTOR®
  • instead, use: Realtor"
—Lifeisunfair 22:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps then, if the Manual of Style encourages the CamelCase usage, a similar notice that is on the Realtor page can be placed on the DirecTV page. Something like "DirecTV is a trademarked name, which should always be capitalized. When referring to itself, the company always uses the "DIRECTV" spelling, in all capital letters. Most people and publications however use the mixed case spelling, depending on their manual of style."
—Thehedgehog 06:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
It needn't be that verbose (because "DirecTV" isn't commonly mistaken for a generic term), but I agree that there should be a mention of the company's preferred spelling. I recently added such a notation to the Citgo (CITGO) article, and I just adapted it for this article. —Lifeisunfair 17:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
No offense, but that's ugly. I frankly don't see why we should have to explain the MoS *at all* anywhere except, well, in the MoS. If people are so concerned about what the company wants, they can visit the company's Web site, which is in the "External links" section. I've removed the mention of preferred capitalisation from the intro. If it must be mentioned, it needs to go somewhere else.--chris.lawson 22:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
"No offense, but that's ugly."
I'm not offended, but you could be a bit more tactful. (In particular, I was mildly perturbed by your edit summary; "ugliness" is not the kindest term with which to describe another user's good faith contribution.)
"I frankly don't see why we should have to explain the MoS *at all* anywhere except, well, in the MoS."
This has nothing to do with explaining the MoS. (The placement of such text in an article would violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.) The idea is not to explain why we use the spelling "DirecTV," but to inform the reader that the company uses the spelling "DIRECTV."
Wikipedia articles are mirrored elsewhere, so it isn't reasonable to expect a reader to be aware of the possibility that a trademark has been modified from its original form to comply with our MoS. (In fact, it’s unreasonable to expect the average Wikipedia reader to be aware of this fact.)
"If people are so concerned about what the company wants, they can visit the company's Web site, which is in the 'External links' section."
1. Lacking specific knowledge, a reader would never have the thought "I wonder what spelling the company prefers" cross his/her mind. He/she would simply take the article at face value.
2. The purpose of the article is to provide fundamental factual information about the company. The spelling of its name certainly qualifies.
"If it must be mentioned, it needs to go somewhere else."
Where do you suggest? I'm my assessment, the lead is the only appropriate location. I don't see how else to logically fit it in (without creating a dedicated section, which obviously isn't appropriate). —Lifeisunfair 23:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
How about where the original complainant suggested: in the second paragraph of the "General Information" section?--chris.lawson 01:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, that would be awkward. —Lifeisunfair 02:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, I would take issue with your claim that the capitalisation (or lack thereof) of a company's name is "fundamental" to an understanding of the company. Whether a company's trademark is capped "DirecTV" or "DIRECTV" or "Adidas" or "adidas" or "Yahoo" or "Yahoo!" is pretty much irrelevant to what that company does and is, regardless of what their PR department thinks.--chris.lawson 02:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
A company’s name isn't a fundamental part of what it does, but it is a fundamental part of what it is. This company could be called "SatTV," "SuperTV" or "RupertVision," and it wouldn't change the nature of its business. It is, however, incumbent on us to specify the correct name (and in some cases, multiple correct alternative names) of our article's subject — a significant element of its identity. This applies to companies, people, places and everything else that we cover on this site.
This information typically is included in the lead paragraph. (See Apartment, Hanukkah or virtually any other article pertaining to a subject that's widely referred to by multiple names and/or spellings.) How is "DIRECTV" any different (aside from the fact that it actually is a more correct spelling than our article's title)? —Lifeisunfair 02:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, for starters, this isn't a spelling difference. It's exclusively a stylistic difference, which matters not one whit if someone wants to use this article as a jumping-off point for more research into DirecTV. In other words, "directv", "direcTV", "DIRECTV", and "DirecTV" will all get the same search results in any competent search engine. If Wikipedia is forced to bow to the trademark police for every single utterly idiotic example of corporate branding, it's going to set a really bad precedent. There is no reason this should go in the lead paragraph; I'm already compromising by suggesting it be included in the main body of the article at all. It really ought to be in a trivia section. See here for more on why giving in to the trademark police is a Bad Thing™.
"Well, for starters, this isn't a spelling difference."
The word "spelling" can refer specifically to the sequence of letters, but it also can simply mean "the way in which a word is spelled." [Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language] This issue pertains to the way in which the company's name is spelled.
"It's exclusively a stylistic difference, which matters not one whit if someone wants to use this article as a jumping-off point for more research into DirecTV. In other words, 'directv', 'direcTV', 'DIRECTV', and 'DirecTV' will all get the same search results in any competent search engine."
Why do you continually use these hypothetical scenarios (in which readers are compelled to visit other sources) as the basis for deciding what facts should be contained within this article? Many readers will not use this article as a "jumping-off point"; it will be their sole source of DirecTV information, so they'll be deprived of the knowledge that the company prefers a different spelling (a detail that won't necessarily be revealed if they do type the name into a search engine). If we wrote articles to serve as nothing more than "jumping-off point[s]," all of them would be stubs. (Why bother to include information that's available elsewhere online?) Wikipedia articles are not a mere collections of external links or Internet directories.
"If Wikipedia is forced to bow to the trademark police for every single utterly idiotic example of corporate branding, it's going to set a really bad precedent."
1. I would hardly describe a single mention of the company's official spelling (verifiably factual information) as "bow[ing] to the trademark police." Abiding by your condemnation of said practice, on the other hand . . .
2. It's become increasingly clear (given your description of the company's branding as "utterly idiotic") that your stance is based entirely upon a non-neutral point of view. I agree that the spelling "DIRECTV" is silly, but such personal opinions are irrelevant to the article's content; we mustn't omit or remove relevant information simply because we dislike it.
I've patiently discussed this issue for close to four days, and you've yet to provide any justification for your change that doesn't rely exclusively upon your disdain for unorthodox trademark capitalization and the related belief that the onus should be on readers to seek this information elsewhere. These arguments defy Wikipedia policy, so I've restored the notation. As a compromise, I've added the parenthetical statement to the second sentence (which concerns ownership details), instead of the first.
Of course, you're welcome to initiate a request for comment (to introduce some outside input and establish a consensus).
"There is no reason this should go in the lead paragraph"
The fact that the Wikipedia convention is to almost always place alternative names/spellings in the lead paragraph seems like a good reason.
"I'm already compromising by suggesting it be included in the main body of the article at all."
That's true, but I believe that your stance is entirely without merit (no offense intended). By extension, so is this proposed compromise.
"It really ought to be in a trivia section."
Please cite some English language Wikipedia articles in which notations of modern alternative English language names/spellings of the primary subjects are confined to trivia sections. There might actually be a few, and I'd like to see them.
"See here for more on why giving in to the trademark police is a Bad Thing™."
Again, this is a non-NPOV. —Lifeisunfair 17:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to make the argument that using corporate branding is also non-NPOV. But it's a silly argument to make, as the entire Manual of Style here could be construed as one big POV. So could the rules of English grammar and spelling. Furthermore, dismissing Bill Walsh as simply "non-NPOV" is ridiculous. He's a widely respected and well-known expert in matters such as this, and he's written at least two best-sellers on the subject.

You wanted examples? Use Walsh's. Macy's makes no mention of the asterisk at all (though you can see it in the photo of the storefront). Our article on US West is properly without the extraneous space in "US". J.C. Penney is in the process of being moved back to where it belongs (not sure how it got moved in the first place). Exxon Mobil will be moved following the same reasoning fairly shortly. Yahoo's page has the exclamation point merely to disambiguate Yahoo from the various other pages with similar titles.

As for your other arguments, well, we want to make an encyclopedia. Again, I'll quote and paraphrase Walsh:

The companies and their trademark lawyers want you to duplicate their capitalization. They also want you to use the trademark symbol. They also want you to use the word "brand" and a generic identifier to guard against the loss of their trademarks (journalists eat Big Macs; McDonald's lawyers might want us to eat BIG MAC® brand sandwich products). Are you going to give in to all of those demands? Do you want your encyclopedia to look like a collection of press releases?

Oh, one more thing. My stance is based upon standard rules of English grammar and capitalisation. To call that non-NPOV is a terribly weak argument at best. I don't think you're a hired flack for the company, but you can't seriously think it's a good idea to capitalise things that way, can you?--chris.lawson 22:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

"It's pretty easy to make the argument that using corporate branding is also non-NPOV."
It's impossible for the accurate citation of a relevant fact to be non-NPOV, unless other relevant facts are not assigned reasonable weight. The article presently contains 43 instances of the spelling "DirecTV," which obviously hasn't been denied a sufficient amount of coverage.
"But it's a silly argument to make,"
Agreed.
"as the entire Manual of Style here could be construed as one big POV. So could the rules of English grammar and spelling."
When such judgement calls must be made, we fall back on the concept of "consensus"; the MoS was created in this manner, and English language rules have evolved via a similar process (spanning centuries).
"Furthermore, dismissing Bill Walsh as simply 'non-NPOV' is ridiculous."
I didn't dismiss him or his work, but it is non-NPOV.
"He's a widely respected and well-known expert in matters such as this, and he's written at least two best-sellers on the subject."
When did I question the author's credentials? The point is that it doesn't matter how learned or renowned he is. He could be the world's foremost authority on the subject of marketing, and it wouldn't change the fact that the cited piece is an editorial. A person's subjective opinions cannot be construed as facts, no matter how knowledgeable or prominent he/she is.
"You wanted examples?"
Yes, but not just any examples. I requested that you cite some English language Wikipedia articles in which notations of modern alternative English language names/spellings of the primary subjects are confined to trivia sections. Have you found any?
"Use Walsh's."
They don't fit the above criteria, but I'm more than willing to address them.
"Macy's makes no mention of the asterisk at all (though you can see it in the photo of the storefront)."
You're comparing apples to oranges. The chain's official name is "Macy's." The logo is merely a stylized representation of this name. Conversely, the DBS service's official name is "DIRECTV." Countless companies use all-uppercase logos, but this one actually spells its name in this manner.
"Our article on US West is properly without the extraneous space in 'US'."
I'm not familiar with this defunct company (and don't know whether its name actually was spelled in this manner), but a quick glance at the article reveals that the extra space is used throughout. (That probably should be changed.) This excludes the title, of course, and I'll point out that I have never advocated changing this article's title to "DIRECTV," nor have I advocated using that spelling anywhere other than the one notation that I added.
"J.C. Penney is in the process of being moved back to where it belongs (not sure how it got moved in the first place)."
That's the same type of situation as the "Macy's" example; the "JCPenney" logo is a stylized representation of the official "J.C. Penney" name. I just indicated my support of the proposed move.
"Exxon Mobil will be moved following the same reasoning fairly shortly."
I have mixed feelings about that one. "Exxon Mobil Corporation" is the official name, but "ExxonMobil" is their official brand (and a considerably more common spelling).
A more cut-and-dry example is Time Warner (which uses CamelCase in its current logo, but does not officially spell its name that way).
To be frank, the popularity of merger-derived CamelCase names annoys the heck out of me (with the internally inconsistent PricewaterhouseCoopers being the most egregious example), but I don't allow my personal viewpoints to slant my Wikipedia article editing. (Well, I try not to, at least.)
"As for your other arguments, well, we want to make an encyclopedia."
Precisely. As such, we strive to convey relevant facts, including the ones that annoy us.
"Again, I'll quote and paraphrase Walsh:"
"The companies and their trademark lawyers want you to duplicate their capitalization."
They also want us to mention their names and write articles about them. Should we delete all articles concerning companies, lest we provide this undo publicity?
You're responding as though I'm insisting that we refer to the brand as "DIRECTV" throughout the article. I'm not, and a single mention (irrespective of its location) does not come close to satisfying the company's request that this spelling be consistently applied.
"They also want you to use the trademark symbol. They also want you to use the word "brand" and a generic identifier to guard against the loss of their trademarks (journalists eat Big Macs; McDonald's lawyers might want us to eat BIG MAC® brand sandwich products). Are you going to give in to all of those demands? Do you want your encyclopedia to look like a collection of press releases?"
I want the encyclopedia to look like a collection of facts.
"Oh, one more thing. My stance is based upon standard rules of English grammar and capitalisation."
My stance is based upon facts. The company officially spells its name "DIRECTV," and no English rules can change that fact.
Incidentally, a standard English rule dictates that commas are to be placed inside quotation marks. (I've corrected the article accordingly.)
"To call that non-NPOV is a terribly weak argument at best."
Are you claiming that your belief that the "DIRECTV" spelling is "utterly idiotic" is not a biased POV?
You haven't addressed the fact that the overwhelmingly prevalent Wikipedia convention is to include alternative names/spellings in the lead paragraph. You don't seem to disapprove of this practice, unless you dislike the source of the alternative name/spelling (and, as noted above, believe that its creation was "utterly idiotic"). How is that an appropriate, NPOV criterion?
"I don't think you're a hired flack for the company, but you can't seriously think it's a good idea to capitalise things that way, can you?"
Quoth my previous reply:
"I agree that the spelling 'DIRECTV' is silly, but such personal opinions are irrelevant to the article's content; we mustn't omit or remove relevant information simply because we dislike it."
—Lifeisunfair 01:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed that you also refactored my notation from the Citgo article (which, for the record, I added upon moving the article from CITGO back to its original name). I'm going to assume good faith, but it's difficult to believe that this change was not made primarily out of spite (given the fact that you waited until after I restored my notation to the DirecTV article). —Lifeisunfair 02:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
It was good faith. In response to your point above, I do disagree with the convention of mentioning purely stylistic variations of a company name or trademark in the lead paragraph, primarily because such discussion is, as I said, trivial to the broader subject of the article.
Thanks for the support on J.C. Penney. I'll probably be putting ExxonMobil up for a move pretty soon, and I intend to fix the US West article ASAP. If you see any other instances of this around, I'd appreciate it if you'd bring 'em to my attention. Thanks.--chris.lawson 11:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I spent a great deal of time responding to your individual points, and you ignored most of my comments/questions. Your reply answers a question that I didn't ask, and I'll address that below:
"In response to your point above, I do disagree with the convention of mentioning purely stylistic variations of a company name or trademark in the lead paragraph,"
Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. The issue (which I've raised several times) is that you apply this principle only to spelling variations that you personally dislike — id est trademarks. You haven't opposed the inclusion of alternative spellings in the lead paragraph, unless you have deemed them "utterly idiotic." You have unilaterally and arbitrarily determined that certain alternative spellings are less valid than others, and this is based upon your desire to thwart a perceived danger in "bowing" to the "demands" of companies whose marketing techniques you condemn. This is highly biased and inappropriate.
You're drawing an unfair distinction. Irrespective of its original source, "DIRECTV" is a common, modern spelling of the company's name. The standard Wikipedia convention is to include common, modern spelling/name variations in the lead paragraph — not merely the ones that don't annoy Chris Lawson.
"primarily because such discussion is, as I said, trivial to the broader subject of the article."
The subject of the article is DirecTV/DIRECTV. Its name is not an insignificant detail. —Lifeisunfair 12:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Alternative spellings" are not "stylistic interpretations of a company name." They are just that: alternative spellings.--chris.lawson 03:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm beginning to wonder if you even bothered to read everything that I wrote.
By "alternative spellings," I'm not referring to cases such as Macy's and J.C. Penney. As I said, the logos in question are not alternative spellings; they're stylized representations of the official spellings.
Conversely, "DIRECTV" is an alternative spelling — and an official one at that. Irrespective of the logo, the company formally refers to itself as "DIRECTV," and this spelling often is used by others when referring to the company. The same applies to the "CITGO" spelling.
Your sole justification for not including this information in the lead paragraph (as we would note any other modern English language spelling in widespread use) is your personal dislike of these trademarks. Do you honestly not understand why that's an inappropriate criterion? —Lifeisunfair 14:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Can you cite an example of a pure spelling difference where we mention it in the lead of a company (or similar) article here on Wikipedia?--chris.lawson 21:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
How about the aforementioned ExxonMobil? (Of course, you intend to "fix" that article, just as you "fixed" my contribution to Citgo.)
I doubt that there are many such examples on Wikipedia, because most company names that deviate from standard English do so in the form of CamelCase (the consistent use of which is sanctioned by the MoS). ExxonMobil is unusual in the respect that both the CamelCase and non-CamelCase spellings are officially used. —Lifeisunfair 22:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
As I noted before, Exxon Mobil Corporation has a space in it. Look at the copyright notice on their own home page. Look at their SEC filings. The version without a space is corporate styling, nothing more. Your inability to come up with further examples is a telling argument against your position, though.--chris.lawson 00:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
"As I noted before, Exxon Mobil Corporation has a space in it."
As I noted in reply, "Exxon Mobil Corporation" is the name of the parent corporation. "ExxonMobil" is one of its brands (not merely a stylized logo).
"Look at the copyright notice on their own home page."
. . . which refers to the parent corporation. Look at all of the non-logo instances of "ExxonMobil." How many instances of the phrase "Exxon Mobil" are not followed by word "Corporation"?
"Look at their SEC filings. The version without a space is corporate styling, nothing more."
That's analogous to claiming that "Sears" is nothing more than corporate styling. In actuality, it's a brand of Sears Holdings Corporation. The fact that one of the parent corporation's brands resembles its corporate name with a space and the word "Holdings" removed is irrelevant.
Likewise, "ExxonMobil" is a brand of Exxon Mobil Corporation. The fact that one of the parent corporation's brands resembles its corporate name with a space removed is irrelevant.
"Your inability to come up with further examples is a telling argument against your position, though."
You asked me to "cite an example." I cited an example, so now you're criticizing me for not citing multiple examples.
Again, excluding other languages and CamelCase (which can me used throughout an article, thereby eliminating the need to include a special notation), there are very few organizations whose names deviate from standard English rules. Other than CITGO and DIRECTV, I can't think of any. Please name some, and we can check whatever articles exist.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to cite some examples of articles in which notations of modern alternative English language names/spellings of the primary subjects are confined to sections other than the lead paragraphs. Your apparent inability to do so is a telling argument against your position. —Lifeisunfair 02:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
After typing the above, I realized that we overlooked an obvious example (straight from the MoS) that fits both criteria: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS. It's another all-uppercase name, and the explanation of this fact is located below the lead.
The key difference, of course, is that the article has an entire two-paragraph section dedicated to the topic. Should we compile comparable sections for DirecTV and Citgo? —Lifeisunfair 02:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That article has exactly one sentence dedicated to the notion that the trademark "REALTOR" is typeset in all-caps, and zero dedicated to the notion that the organization is the "NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHOUTING HOUSE-SELLERS". However, the way the article handles the topic is quite acceptable to me.--chris.lawson 03:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Within the two-paragraph section concerning the "REALTOR" trademark, I count two sentences on the topic of its "all-caps" nature:
The NAR requires its members to typeset the term in all capitals with an accompanying ® symbol. Many newspapers and other publications use mixed case in deference to their own style guide.
Please answer my question. (Should we compile comparable sections for DirecTV and Citgo?) —Lifeisunfair 03:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the way it's addressed now in those two articles is perfectly sufficient.--chris.lawson 03:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, I disagree. As I indicated on the 18th, I believe that dedicated sections would be inappropriate, but I also feel that your versions address the official spellings of the company's names with insufficient context and prominence. —Lifeisunfair 04:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just read this lengthy discussion, and, based on the fact that Lifeisunfair's arguments seem more based on straightforward logic, and chris.lawson's seem to be slightly more emotional, I tend to agree with Lifeisunfair. Dansiman 08:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider to your Wikipedia editors' clubhouse, I just want to ask an obvious question- If the Manual of Style is causing this argument, and disallows all-caps spelling of names even when the name is meant to be spelled in all caps, then why in the heck don't you change the Manual of Style? It clearly conflicts with the reality of the situation, and therefore could be edited itself to reflect the needs of these cases. Jeez- Even the dictionary and most standard encyclopedias allow for all-caps names if that is the official company name. Instead of having a disclaimer, just change the rule and list this and other entries the way the company intended the name to be spelled. It seems to me that your sole problem with the all-caps spelling is that some of you simply "don't like it." It's not up to you to like it, though. It's up to you to record what is factual and true, and DIRECTV is spelled "D-I-R-E-C-T-V" and not "D-i-r-e-c-T-V" no matter how much you groan at it. Sometimes, you guys are so blinded by your damned Manual of Style that you can't see the forest for the trees. It's not a holy text, written in stone!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.199.65 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
I am confused. Where did the spelling "DirecTV" come from anyway? If we are not going to spell the name as the company spells it, why has the world come up with "DirecTV" as the spelling? There is no official source as far as I could find to justify that spelling. I would sooner just called the company "Directv" if we're going to start applying arbitrary capitalization because we don't want to use the company's given name. The company is officially DIRECTV and so is its trademark. I realize that some major media also apply arbitrary capitalization to the letters "TV", but that does not make it correct. I vote that it is either DIRECTV (the actual name) or Directv (to avoid cowtowing to the trademark gods)... but not this arbitrary DirecTV.Dexter f 20:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Might I point out Wikipedia's policy on using common names, backed up by a quick search of Google News, which shows that virtually every established and reputable news organisation in the English-speaking world uses the "DirecTV" spelling. That's an extremely solid argument for the way the article is written now as well as the position taken in the Manual of Style.66.176.129.201 23:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did we end up with this discussion ? Right now we have both ways of referencing the company name (DIRECTV and DirecTV). For what its worth, i agree with Lifeisunfair that we should use the official case as referenced in the company's website.--147.21.16.3 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation for E*/D* factoid

I think a citation for that is completely unnecessary. It is common knowledge of the meaning of D* and E* for those who know the basics of the satellite industry --Bshrode 18:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You cannot presume that someone who reads this Wikipedia entry would have "common knowledge" of the "basics of the satellite industry." --Mhking 18:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia "citing sources" style guide encourages using the 'citation needed' tag sparingly. You have to draw the line somewhere. I don't see how the validity of this fact could be challenged. There are plenty of other facts in this article which are much more deserving of a citation than this one. --Bshrode 18:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
In order to clean up the article, I have found a source which validates the fact in question. The necessity of the citation should still be reviewed, however. --Bshrode 19:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Basics of the satellite industry in the US possibly, but the Wikipedia is international. E* would be in common usage in Europe to refer to Echostar FTA kit, not Dish Network; and D* would, erm, mean nothing at all. Similarly I don't expect you to know what D+, C+, CF+ and so on mean even though most people in Europe with any knowledge of satellite would. --Kiand 01:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Locals

I edited the locals section. It was incorrect. DISH Network places independent stations on a side sat requiring a second dish. DirecTV has all the locals for a particular market on one sat.--SamC 12:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Local HDTV Channels

Recently, I came accross this website: http://directv.com/DTVAPP/packProg/channelChart2.jsp?assetId=1100086 which said that DirecTV has added The WB in HDTV to its lineup. However, this does not show up in my programming guide. I talked to a D* CSR, and they said it was up to local affiliates to add their channel to the lineup. So, it is my understanding now that this channel is available, but not necessarily to anyone. Should we add this to the article's listing of channels?

WB (now CW) is a local channel, there are thousands of WB's across the country and DirecTV can't add them all. Not only that but federal law only provides that satelite can only provide your local market. DirecTV's priority is the NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX Stations --Greataff 06:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Where's the star pointing to?

Plus, DIRECTV offers locals in HD in select markets.*

What's the star at the end of the sentence for? JanCK 07:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It was evidence that the text was copy-and-pasted from an external source. Jerry 22:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Competitors to DirecTV

I am returning the list of competitors to the See Also as they are entirely relevant. --KJRehberg 16:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

They were pulled as they are irrelevant, just as no other company's competition is mentioned in the same vein in other articles. Case-in-point; in the Ford article, you don't find each and every competitive company listed; you don't find competition's articles noted in television network articles; likewise, they shouldn't be listed here. I'm pulling them once again for the same reason. --Mhking 05:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Editorial comments

...Although these devices could be used to rewrite DirecTV's access cards, there are countless legitimate uses for them as well. This has caused controversy, since DirecTV is making the assumption that all purchasers of the devices are pirates.

This addition may be true but strikes me as editorial comment and adds very little to the article. I am removing them. Stivo 18:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

News/Liberty deal

So, I'm still not clear... The deal, if it closes, will give controlling interest, and thus control over DIRECTV from News Corp. to LIbery Media? Kdupuy9 01:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Also, the thing about News Corp. possibly wanting to merge thier sat TV companies, since it seems to have no source, and since News COrp seems to be getting rid of DIRECTV anyway, should I just delete it? Kdupuy9 02:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that Liberty has not yet taken ownership of DIRECTV, so the intro paragraph on this homepage needs to be updated to reflect the fact that, as of March 30, 2007, News Corporation is still in possession of the 39% stake in The DIRECTV Group.

4/27/07: See this excerpt from an article on Yahoo Finance: "Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. agreed earlier this year to swap its 38.4 percent stake in DirecTV to John Malone's Liberty Media Corp. in exchange for $550 million in cash and Liberty's roughly $11 billion stake in News Corp. The agreement is awaiting regulatory approval." (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070427/directv_executive_compensation.html?.v=1) The News Corp./Liberty transaction is not final, and it is factually incorrect to state on this page that Liberty controls the DIRECTV Group. 147.21.16.3 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)bmy

First sentence should be changed

hey "DirecTV (trademarked as "DIRECTV") is a direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service based in El Segundo, California, USA, that transmits digital satellite television and audio to households in the United States, the Caribbean and Latin America except for Mexico." should say "to households in North America...except for Mexico" because Mexico is definitely NOT part of the United States. Part of North America, yes. Part of the United States, no. Thanks...71.116.71.27 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, the sentence structure is correct. DirecTV also does not provide service to Canada, so using North America would be incorrect. The sentence is saying that Mexico is excepted from the Latin America service area of DirecTV. To break it down: DirecTV services 1) the United States; 2) the Caribbean; 3) Latin America except for Mexico. Wyv 22:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wyv, ok I stand corrected, I have looked again and am satisfied with your explanation,thanks. (sorry I took so long to reply) 71.116.71.27 04:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ad campaign

US and Latin American lineups?

Since the DIRECTV brand is used both for the US service, but also for the Latin American service as well, I wonder if there is a possibility of putting up channel lineups for both and comparing/contrasting the two? -Daniel Blanchette 03:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DirecTV/Archive_1&oldid=1136310759"