Talk:DirecTV/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 3 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is clearly against this proposal. (non-admin closure) Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

DirecTV → AT&T Entertainment – AT&T is planning to revamp both the U-verse name and the DirecTV name and move all customers to a derivative equipment currently used by DirecTV beginning next month. And here's the link to the article: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Plans-on-Killing-the-DirecTV-Name-Starting-in-January-135765 AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC) AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, more procedurally than anything else, because you've also proposed that U-verse be moved to the same title. Are you trying to have us move one or the other (i.e. we need to debate which one's the primary topic), or are you suggesting a merge, or did you simply make a mistake? Once they rename their services, of course we'll need to move or merge one or both pages, but I'd rather understand your intentions before supporting or opposing anything on substantive grounds. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose because there are no concrete statements on what will be happening. Corporations are notorious for announcing changes that are late, or changing branding. Besides, DirectTV was still a notable enough entity prior to having their equipment bought out; a stand-alone article should be maintained. Scr★pIron^IV 22:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per ScrapIronIV. There should be a stand-alone article for DirecTV.🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 23:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Too soon, and we can't move two articles to the same title. In any case, coverage of the historical DirecTV service should remain. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
oppose from the statement AT&TE is a new product that merges DirecTV and U-Verse, and not a rename of DirecTV. A new article should be started instead. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. WP:CRYSTAL. DirecTV is the current common name, any move proposal should wait until that is no longer the case. --Tt(^talk/_contribs) 08:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name Change

When AT&T changes the name of DirecTV to AT&T Entertainment, I suggest that the latter be created into a separate page, as it is essentially a merger of DirecTV and AT&T's own U-verse service. Both companies had different histories prior to the merger and it wouldn't make sense to put both companies' histories into the same page. Paul Badillo (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 6 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

DirecTV → DIRECTV – The company's name is in capital letters. AdamDeanHall (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - Per WP:MOSTM "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'". -- [[ axg
// ✉ ]] 01:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed that MOSTM is the correct policy, but can you explain why you believe the current title is following "standard English text formatting and capitalization"? It would seem that Directv would be more to standard casing standards. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  - TV is an abbreviation of television which is rarely if ever spelled tv. It is also pronounced as the letters tee vee not tiv.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose per AxG. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 01:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose MOS:TM/MOS:CAPS; not an acronym -- 70.51.44.60 (talk)

Oppose, because the all-caps is more ugly and obnoxious than the current "camel case" in which the part that is pronounced as a word is rendered as a word and the part that is pronounced as an abbreviation is rendered as an abbreviation, which seems like the closest we can get to ordinary English formatting for this name. I also strongly suspect that high quality independent reliable sources generally favor the current form. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose as per MOSTM and MOSCAPS. Not sure there is a perfect name to satisfy policy, but the current form is more preferred than the proposed. It is interesting, however, that they make a distinction on their website between DIRECTV and DirecTV but a cursory look it appears to just be marking and branding puffery. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That commentary on their website is not about whether they mind if someone refers to them as DirecTV or not. It is about false and misleading advertising by other companies. The purpose of that page is simply to warn the public that if someone is advertising themselves using a different name/formatting, then that is not the same company, because their own marketing styling is consistent. That page is also entitled "DIRECTV vs DIRECT TV. What's in a name?", not "DIRECTV and DirecTV". On that page, "DirecTV" only appears as one member of a long list of alternative similar name variations – it is not something they are highlighting as being especially objectionable to them. I also notice that on their logo (perhaps it is an older logo) the styling is rendered with the "TV" part of the name being clearly distinct, roughly as in the fragmented boldfacing format "DIRECTV", which is rather similar in spirit to "DirecTV". And, of course, we should be paying more attention to what independent reliable sources say than to what the company itself says. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose per BarrelProof. All-caps is out per MOSTM; if it were pronounced like "directive" then Directv would be better, but since it's pronounced "direc-tee-vee", capitalizing TV is the standard. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NRTC

Why is there no mention of the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative and their exclusive DirecTV service distribution contract to distribute DirecTV services in rural NRTC territories between launch and ending in 2004? 2600:100D:B000:ABB1:7551:73D7:8395:BB42 (talk)9/20/16 —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Early Hughes/DirecTV/TelePrompTer information needed?

I'm sort of new to all this, and I know that original research is verboten, but I noticed that the DirecTV article lacks details from the 1970s, including the earlier Hughes development of an internal company cable communication network. This led to a partnership between Hughes and TelePrompTer, who combined to offer cable services and FCC-mandated original programming, originally in Southern California. The importance of this is the fact that Hughes originated an intra-company cable TV communication system that was the prototype of all current cable TV systems. I worked for the TPT/Hughes partnership, so I can't add this to the article. If anyone is interested, contact me at chuck@2007ac.com ChuckL88 (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on DirecTV. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 16:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on DirecTV. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)