Talk:Syfy/Archive 1

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

Braveheart

some clarification is needed. on the US Sci-Fi Braveheart was never shown, nor was Passions

Braveheart was indeed shown on this channel - | SCI FI Schedule for November 24th, 2002- on November 24th, 2002 at 7PM Eastern.

"(Braveheart has been shown on SCI FI in the past and the NBC soap opera Passions is currently shown) "

Name

Changed name to: 1. Use Correct Corporate Name 2. Help avoid confusion with U.K. channel, which is not the same

I was under the impression that the U.K. channel was simply called Sci Fi without the word "Channel" -JonMoore 08:55, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Both channels are called, simply, "Sci Fi" -- the "channel" and country designation is for disambiguity. Davodd 06:11, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

I made the mistake of moving the German version to "Channel" from "channel" for consistency only to find that the UK version had been moved in the opposite direction (capitalisation-wise). Perhaps as the name is simply "Sci Fi" we could move all three to something like Sci Fi (United States television channel), Sci Fi (United Kingdom television channel), and Sci Fi (German television channel)? Courtland 00:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Updates

I added the founding year of the channel and some more recent show titles, and also changed the name of Deepwater Black to Mission Genesis. (The show was called MG in the US and DB outside the US, so I think this is more appropriate, since we're talking about the US version of Sci Fi.)

Other Movies Shown on SciFi?

Does this merely include B-movies not produced by their film productions or simply anything aired thereon that's a film? DrWho42 23:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


Back in '92 when the channel launched, just before they started the movie star wars, they had a 10 second bumper that read "Dedicated to --" with three names listed. My memory isn't great, but I think two of the names they mentioned were Issac Asimov and Ray Bradbury. If anyone could remember or find out the names this should be something added to the trivia section. MindScream 14:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Sci Fi channel DVDs

I noticed that many Sci Fi Channel movies and miniseries get relesed on DVD (such as Man with the Screaming Brain, Alien Apocalypse, Alien Lockdown, The Dune Miniseries and so-on, all of which are availible at Amazon.com), does anyone know where I can find out about upcoming Sci Fi Chanel DVD releases? Specifiacially, I am wondering if they will release Mammoth (film) on DVD, and when that might happen.

  • I'd like to know that too. It would be great if Mammoth came out on DVD becuase I'm a fan of Summer Glau (who stars in Mammoth) and would love to own the DVD version of the movie. 151.203.160.169 06:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs

Moved the list to: List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs. It was overpowering the main article about the network. Some non-archival information may need to be re-imported to flesh out some of the paragraphs. - Davodd 06:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

POV and Cleanup issues need addressed

I have tagged this article for POV and innaccuracy reasons. (see Below)

ORIGINAL TEXT:

There are a growing number of cable viewers who feel that the network has lost focus from its founding principles. Critics site programming like Braveheart, the NBC soap opera Passions, WWE wrestling (aired in May 2006) and episodes of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (aired in May 2006) [citation needed], as these programs have little relevance to science fiction. For the time being, it seems science fiction will only be relegated to special event programming (like The Triangle, aired in December 2005) and the very few original series that SCI FI does air that can be classified as science fiction, like Battlestar Galactica and Eureka and The Dresden Files, planned for the 2006-2007 season.

POV Phrases:

  1. "and the very few original series that SCI FI does air"
  2. "these programs have little relevance to science fiction"
  3. "it seems science fiction will only be relegated to special event programming"

Innacurracies:

  1. Citing of the mysterious and unnamed and uncited "them":
    - "There are a growing number of cable viewers who feel"
    - "Critics site"
  2. Wrong information:
    - "the NBC soap opera Passions ... (has) little relevance to science fiction."
Reason: Passions, although a soap opera, is a supernatural soap opera with witches, golems and magic.

- Davodd 07:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Article to talk page

The following was moved to this talk page from the main article for POV and accuracy reasons noted above. Please feel free include facts from the below info in the main article once they are cited and checked for accuracy. - Davodd 19:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Current controversy among fans

There are a growing number of cable viewers who feel that the network has lost focus from its founding principles.

Critics cite programming like Braveheart, the NBC soap opera Passions, WWE wrestling, aired in May 2006, (SCI FI May 30th, 2006 Schedule) and episodes of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, aired in May 2006 (SCI FI May 4th, 2006 Schedule) , as these programs have little relevance to science fiction. For the time being, it seems science fiction will only be relegated to special event programming (like The Triangle, aired in December 2005) and the very few original series that SCI FI does air that can be classified as science fiction, like Battlestar Galactica and Eureka and The Dresden Files, planned for the 2006-2007 season.

Contrast betwixt 1992-1998 Sci-Fi Channel and the Bonnie Hammer era

Frankly, as several viewers of the channel are well-aware, there is a definate difference betwixt the two eras.. I think there should be a segment written up concerning thereto. DrWho42 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

SciFi.com

There should be a segment of the article concerning the website itself and the message boards therein as has G4 has done. DrWho42 02:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Two articles to mention/expand upon...

SCI FI Magazine and SCI FI Wire should definitely be expanded and mentioned upon this article. Preferably subscribers or people who frequent that isle of the Internet... DrWho42 06:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sci Fi Pictures original films

I've recently seceded the list of B-movies from List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs so that it could prosper on its own.. If any one of you can do their part to improve this article or its corresponding articles, please feel free to do so. Personally, I've got around to doing the ones for Savage Planet, The Snake King, and The Harpy. DrWho42 06:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

PRWeb "Press Release"

I've read the article history and some of the editors are doing a good job so far. However, I'd still advise those tempted to put this info onto the article not to do so. Also, look here. I haven't found it, so it looks like it has been deleted. -- CRiyl 16:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As soon as I saw this on fark I knew someone would have already hit wikipedia with it. Note to future editors of this article: Just because its on the internet doesn't mean its true. http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2249915 Carterhawk 23:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I readily admit and apologize for my mistake -- I had no idea PR Web was a site anyone could submit anything to. However, isn't it kinda telling that such a hoax could begin in the first place, and was believed by so many (I saw it mentioned on several messageboards I frequent, and no one thought it was a hoax until I later told them otherwise)? What does that say about the Sci-Fi Channel? (Yeah, yeah, I know, Wikipedia is not a messageboard or soapbox... just venting.) --Dr Archeville 12:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sci-Fi Friday section.

Frankly, it seems as out-of-place as M. Night Shyamalan hoax, but I think that the forementioned section would be much better off under Sci Fi original programming in either this article or List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs. Anyone agree with me? DrWho42 00:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

United States?

Should the (United States) be dropped from the title? I mean the Sci Fi channel is availible in more than just the USA so its probably better to drop it? Discuss. FireBadger 13:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The (United States) is just there to disambiguate the entry, check out the Sci Fi Channel link, you can see that there are several different channels throughout the world using that name (although they all appear to be affiliated with this one). Cogswobble 13:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Date problem

The article says "Isaac Asimov [was] among those on the advisory board.", but the Issac Asimov article says he died in April 1992, a few months before the channel's launch. Is that a mistake? —Saric (Talk) 23:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, its not a mistake. He was on the advisory board. This channel was a long time coming, and Asimov was on the board for a long time as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.19.246 (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To whoever uploaded that, thanks. 72.185.241.146 23:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Note

--Interesting Note-- Until November 2, 2006 there was a separate listing in Wikipedia for the SFC president Bonnie Hammer. When I looked it up a week ago it was there. When I check earlier this morning(11-02-2006) it was there and when I checked a hour ago it was GONE. It seems somebody deleted it for some reason. I assume a supporter or Bonnie had something to do with this info disappearing. What do you all think?

I don't get this trivia fact.

"As a placeholder for those who were about to receive the Sci Fi channel on cable, a loop of a fly through space in first-person perspective was shown, with a countdown clock in the corner that told viewers exactly when Sci Fi would begin programming. This went on for at least two months before the channel's inception."

I know the fact that this was a countdown,but what is a "loop of a fly through space"?

Ever seen the "fly through space" windows screensaver? Yeah. Same deal. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 03:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the 'We're coming for you...(insert name of prominent sci-fi character) voice over. MWShort (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible expansion

Now that the 1999-2003 Sci-Fi logo has been added into the thumbnails, and the History section makes mention of the currently used network bumpers, I now think the history section should be expanded, in certain ways:

It should explain that from 1992 to 1999, the Sci-Fi Channel's main focus was on science fiction-related pop culture (this was during the time at which the original blue rendition of the "Saturn logo" was used). Before the cable channel was widely carried on United States receivers, Sci-Fi's core programming consisted of shows that took people behind the scenes at '90s fan conventions for many science fiction franchises that were popular at the time (many of which are still popular today). The "blue Saturn" logo had periodic variations in addition to the one seen on the article's thumbnail; during each Fourth of July, the "outer ring" would turn red but the "planet" and the text "Sci-Fi Channel" would retain their normal colors of blue and white, making the logo resemble the colors on the American flag; during each Halloween season, the entire logo would turn orange to resemble the color of a pumpkin; and every Christmas season the entire logo would turn green to resemble holiday colors. And all the network bumpers either showed famous movie or TV clips or a head talking with outerspace as the background. By the time Sci-Fi was widely carried circa 1997, people started e-mailing requests to the channel to focus less on pop culture and more on the genre's actual entertainment, so in 1999 Sci-Fi updated their original "Saturn logo" by dropping the text in the center and changing the color from blue to clear (it should be noted that the newly-uploaded 1999 logo in the thumbnail actually had the words "SCI FI" appear below it during promos for their programming (but not in the on-screen bug during programming or during network promos), meaning that whoever it was who uploaded that image only included part of the logo); subsequently, they changed their primary focus to the genre's actual entertainment and launched their Friday night lineup that's still in use today, only the programs were different (Poltergeist, Farscape, Sliders, and First Wave) during the initial launch of their core lineup than they are today. This change was also done to make themselves more like their sister channel USA, which always dealt primarily with entertainment. From 1999 up until 2003, all the network bumpers showed high-tech interactions between humans and cybernetic machinery, with graphics closely resembling those found in the 1999 blockbuster film The Matrix. Occasionally there were network bumpers that dealt with the cybernetic machinery itself and didn't include the appearance of any humans. By the early 2000's, Sci-Fi had become a rather mainstream cable channel, and to emphasize their focus on mainstream science fiction entertainment, they launched another new logo in 2003; this logo featured a geometrical outline of "Saturn" and the words "Sci Fi" to the right of it (the whole logo appeared during programming as the bug on the bottom-right corner, unlike the previous logo); they then made their Friday night programming even more mainstream with the smash hit remake of Battlestar Galactica as well as two Stargate spin-offs (SG-1 and Atlantis). This logo, focus, and programming lineup variation is still in use today. I think the History section should be expanded to include this important information. 72.185.241.146 23:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The current SCI FI logo was actually introduced during SCI FI's debut airing of their ten-part miniseries Steven Spielberg Presents Taken on December 2nd, 2002. Therefore, by December 2007, the current logo will be five years old. Jason.cinema 03:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above passage that the history and various changes of this channel should be immensely expanded upon. SCI FI is not a sci-fi channel anymore, but it'd be nice to document what this channel once was. Jason.cinema 05:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not the first to show ST:TAS on Cable

This entry incorrectly states that Sci-Fi Channel was the first to show ST:TAS on cable. Nickelodeon was the first to air it back in the 80s. Aristan 02:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference stated above from the entry. ST:TAS's own wikipedia entry contradicts the statement that SciFi Channel was the first to run The Animated Series in Cable syndication. Furthermore, I do not believe that the original Star Trek was first ran on the SciFi Channel. The article referenced only makes mention of Enterprise. Aristan (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed farscape cancellation section

I removed this section, as, first of all, it is unlikely that this is an important aspect of the sci fi channel, and secondly, some of its claims are dubious. For example, it contained the unbelievably unlikely line, "almost all the nation's TV critics, who on the 2nd Day of the tour were already being denied or ignored about their questions/requests on Farscape, screamed almost in unison, "No, we want answers now!". --Xyzzyplugh 03:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Source Material on Farscape cancellation

That was printed in Washington Post, etc. Source info also listed after item in question. Check out the Farscape listing on Wikipedia as well as many a s/f news fan sites and Farscape sites as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spaceman42 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Here is a link I managed to find to the actual story, contained in the internet archive. [1]. I recommend rewriting this section to not contain the obviously silly line about the critics all screaming in unison. I still find it to be highly doubtful that this incident is somehow important enough in the history of the sci fi channel that it even belongs in this article, but I'll let those who care about this article more than I do deal with that issue. --Xyzzyplugh 12:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Relative confirms Reporters actions in Janurary of 2002 during the TREMORS showing

---I have a neighbor who lives up the street. He says his sister is married to a newspaper reporter in the sport section. He said in an email that he got from his brother-in-law that one of the entertainment section reporters that he works with was there at this event. He stated that the entertainment reporter did run into B. Hammer in a hotel lobby and did ask her about the decision to cancel Farscape in 2002. She sort of just left in a hurry saying she had a meeting to get to. He ran into her again later that evening and B. Hammer apparently seem not to interested about Farscape saying she was here to promote her upcoming series of TREMORS. During, the TREMORS showing the following day. After the showing the floor was opened for questions. One of the first questions was the decision to cancel Farscape in 2002. Ms. Hammer did not seem at all interested in answering this question and indicated she would talk to the reporter about this after the TREMORS showing. He confirmed that a very large number of reporters and TV critics in the room almost had a riot demanding answers on the FARSCAPE cancellation. Apparently none of the reporters was not going ask any questions about TREMORS until B. Hammer answered the questions about FARSCAPE cancellation. As for the reporters screaming in unison that did happened in that sort of way.

---User: Fg1977 ---

Jaws

Whoever keeps adding this ridiculous paragraph about Jaws "definitely not" fitting in with the rest of Sci-Fi's programming, please stop. The first paragraph of the article establishes that the channel specializes in "science fiction, fantasy, horror, and paranormal programming," and the channel frequently shows other horror films like The Shining and made-for-TV dreck like House of the Dead II. Good luck finding a single person who doesn't consider Jaws a horror film. DT29 19:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the entire bit about "Jaws" not being a horror film. The Jaws main article says "Jaws was #48 on American Film Institute's 100 Years... 100 Movies, a list of the greatest American films of all time, and #2 on a similar list for thrillers, 100 Years... 100 Thrills. It was #1 in the Bravo network's five-hour miniseries The 100 Scariest Movie Moments (2004).[12] The shark was anointed #18 on AFI's 100 Years, 100 Heroes and Villains." It's article describes it as a "horror-thriller". (Ghostexorcist 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Jaws is definitely a horror movie. And whoever keeps adding this paragraph is treading awfully close to vandalism now. --Janus Shadowsong | contribs 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

-- This addition is back with "cape fear" (horror/drama), jaws (horror/thriller), and braveheart is definitely not an accurate historical portrayal which means its technically fantasy, it could be argued it is appropriate.. pulling the other two references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.77.44 (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Satellite Channel

I've watched the Scifi channel ever since it's inception. Back in the day, my parents owned one of those huge satellite dishes that had a motor that rotated it towards the satellite that broadcasted the channels a person wanted to watch. I remember the Scifi channel was on satellite G5, channel 4. I don't recall seeing this in the article. I think it should be noted since I think it was only available on satellite at the time. Here are some pages that mention G5-4: [2], [3], [4]. I lived in Tennessee at the time, but I've run across pages from Ohio and other states that claim it as G5-4.(Ghostexorcist 06:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Farscape Cancellation Section

This particular section needs to be cleaned up. I'm not quite sure of the meaning some of the sentences are meant to convey. Any help on this would be appreciated. The reason I do this here is because I am not aware of how to recommend a page for clean-up otherwise.



Emptyandgray 11:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ani-monday

Does anyone know what shows are broadcast on the ani-monday lineup?

Current shows being broadcast are Noein, Tokko, and the 4-part OVA version of Macross Plus. In addition, the first broadcast of Ani-Monday featured the U.S. premiere of the movie Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. Solid State Society, and the week before that, the movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was shown, though I don't know if that had anything to do with the current programming block. I also don't know what shows are planned for future broadcast. --Dinoguy1000 Talk 23:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Street Fighter II V is replacing Macross Plus now. --Dinoguy1000 Talk 16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification about links to the SCI FI Channel's encyclopedia of science fiction as appropriate for original programming aired by the SCI FI Channel. Could I ask for a little more information about when links to additional material regarding the SCI FI Channel's programs, as contained in the section of the SCI FI Channel's site known as SCIFIpedia, would be considered useful content?

Longest Science Fiction TV series

"This channel also aired the popular TV series Stargate SG-1 which was canceled after its 10th season, making it the longest run Science Fiction series ever (surpassing the X-files at 9 seasons). SG-1 is still run in syndication on Sci-Fi Friday and Monday."

I think the title of world's longest scifi series goes to Dr. Who. Stargate has aired 247 episodes while Dr. Who has 737(600+ consecutively) and more episodes are in production. But if you're talking North American shows, I think Stargate does get the title. Hope this helps with the page! --TheDelphi 04:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Investigative Shows?

Why no mention in the investigative shows on Sci-Fi? These would include, Destination Truth, Ghost Hunters, Sci-Fi Investigates, SIGHTINGS, etc. They are in my opinion the backbone of the network along with Sci-Fi Friday. -Zsandmann (talk) 18:47, 7 December 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 [5]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New Ani-Monday Show?

I heard that The Sci Fi Network(USA) is going to air Elfen Lied on TV, but its so GRAPHIC!!! Is that true?--LoliMedia (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly possible; however, I couldn't find anything coming up in the schedule or any mentions on the SciFiPedia. If it was aired, I'm not sure what Sci Fi would do about the gore, nudity, etc. --Dinoguy1000 18:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Cartoon Network couldn air it due to EXCESIVE VIOLENCE and ecchi! Could the SciFi Network basicly say F*** You and air it?--LoliMedia (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I couldn't tell you. If Sci Fi is indeed planning to air it, it sounds like they've got a heck of a job censoring it enough to get it past the FCC. --Dinoguy1000 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Old Anime list

I belive, ages ago, that I watched Ronin Warriors on the scifi channel. It was around when they did the Saturday Anime, but was eithe Saturday Mornings or late nights other times. I can't remember. I can't find a source. If i can find any valid source i will add it though. If anyone else can find one, It would be appreciated. Corvato (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Corvato

Non-science-fiction programming

It might be prudent to point out that both Jaws and Cape Fear are noted as not being "horror" films. Jaws' entry specifically refers to it as a thriller/horror film. I am not familiar with Cape Fear, but it's own entry details it as being particularly violent and at points scary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebarbarian87 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia moved from html comment below scifi.com

move by MeekSaffron (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's deal with this trivia section by incorporating this throughout the article. Once they're all sourced and organized, then the unsourced stuff can be deleted.

  • As a placeholder for those who were about to receive the Sci Fi channel on cable, a loop of a fly through space in first-person perspective was shown, with a countdown clock in the corner that told viewers exactly when Sci Fi would begin programming. This went on for at least two months before the channel's inception.
  • The first broadcast of the Sci Fi Channel on September 24, 1992, was an installment of FTL Newsfeed, a fictitious, serialized news program reporting current events from the year 2142. The 30-second episodes would continue to run for the channel's first four years, with new episodes on every weekday. The initial installment reported on the recovery of the original Star Wars movie, which the Sci Fi channel then proceeded to air at 8pm as its first feature-length program. The film was said to have been refurbished and was now able to be viewed "in the privacy of your own head."
  • In 1992, there was a block of animated television shows called "Cartoon Quest" which in 1995 was renamed The Animation Station. Among these were Star Wars: Droids, Star Wars: Ewoks, Star Trek: The Animated Series, and Galaxy High, as well as marionette shows like Stingray and Captain Scarlet.
  • This channel was the first American basic cable network to air Doctor Who.
  • This channel also aired the popular TV series Stargate SG-1 which was canceled after its 10th season, making it the longest-run American science fiction series ever (surpassing The X-Files at 9 seasons). SG-1 is still run in syndication on Sci-Fi Friday and Monday.
  • Although Vampire Hunter D was edited for nudity and with the adult language was censored when it would occasionally air on Saturday mornings at 9AM, the massive amounts of blood and gore were left intact.
  • On August 27, 2007, Sci-Fi aired an episode of WWE Monday Night RAW when USA Network pre-empted the timeslot for RAW on that Monday night.
  • ECW is not shown on The Sci-Fi Channel in the UK or Australia. It is shown on Sky Sports and FOX8 respectively.
  • Sci Fi used to be carried on Apple's iTunes service, but were pulled on December 1, 2007 due to the NBC content dispute with Apple.

3 a.m. prime time

Why does the Sci-Fi Channel run all of its best content at 3 a.m. in the morning? They run Charlie Jade in that time slot, and they must have twice the variety of movies running in that slot as in the rest of their schedule altogether (albeit with the first five minutes cut off just to make absolutely sure no one will start watching). It's as if they have some double agent working for them who buys film and then makes sure no one actually sees it. Wnt (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of the channel

I too would like to see more added regarding criticism of the channel and its diverting of its founding principles. It all started once Bonnie Hammer got her claws into the channel; though she's failed upward, by becoming head of NBC Universal Cable, her successor, David Howe, seems to be of the same stock. Now yes, these are my opinions. But like the poster below stated, the points many like myself (including most of the people on SCI FI's *own* forums) have made and are making - the channel's ludicrous and slavish claim that they represent the science fiction genre as a whole, coupled with their continual and dogged pursuit of lowest common denominator programming and continual airing of non-science fiction programming (Braveheart, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, James Bond films, et al, to name a very few) - are well worth inclusion in this channel's entry. Jason.cinema (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone care to add info and comments about "how bloody awful this channel actually is"? How it "reduces science fiction to lowest common denominator and gives it a bad name"? How it "crucifies books like Dune and A Wizard of Earthsea"? How its "brand video spots are so bad that they actually suck the creativity and intelligence out of your head"? How the original vision of the channel was destroyed? These are some of my own opinions but many, many science fiction aficionados would enthusiastically agree, and we'd all appreciate an entry reflecting some of these concerned questions and heartfelt views. --R

Not unless such comments can be backed up by a reliable source and written in a neutral tone, otherwise they constitute a biased point of view (and original research). And if you've really got such a big problem with SCI FI, the solution is pretty simple: just don't watch it. —Dinoguy1000 18:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course my quotes up there are biased.  : ) They are paraphrased from hearsay and various criticisms I've encountered and concur with (hence, my notice that this article contains no mention of these things; in fact, no criticism at all). But I agree with you, hoping that others will contribute comments citing reliable sources to the end of an eventual write-up with a, yes of course, neutral tone. (I'm too lazy to do so.) Btw, why the "Just don't watch it" comment? That wasn't necessary. --R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.36.4 (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The "just don't watch it" comment wasn't really intended to mean much. ;) It's just that I hear people complaining about X television show/station/movie, or Y website, or Z book, and it's like, if you've really got that big a problem with it, why are you even bothering to look at it? Don't you have better ways to waste your (and everyone else's) time than watching/reading something you don't like and complaining about how much you don't like it?[/rant] =) —Dinoguy1000 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and btw, thanks for hanging in there with me on this.

If we were talking about a single book or TV show, in most cases I would think that negative criticism (or probably any kind of criticism) would not be appropriate here (with some exceptions, like if a particular work is seen as being particularly controversial). But the Sci Fi Channel is an entire network which claims, overtly and certainly with its "all-inclusive" name, to be an authoritative voice for the vast and varied medium of science fiction. In some ways it may be, and has certainly been in the past closer to its inception, but it fails grandly in many ways too, primarily because of corporate shaping of the network over time into an almost strictly commercial (implying lowest common denominator) endeavor with little regard for the true breadth, scope and depth of science fiction. And so, there are many of us, dedicated fans of the history and legacy of SF, who might like to see this mentioned here. Culturally speaking, I think it is important to note.

But I could be wrong and I will certainly defer to you guys & gals to determine this.

I did a little checking. One well-known Sci Fi channel "incident" came immediately to mind --the controversy surrounding its production of Ursula K. Le Guin's first two Earthsea novels (made into a single TV movie). Fortunately Le Guin's own comments are still available on the web. As an FYI and example of what I'm talking about, here are a couple of url's.

A Whitewashed Earthsea - How the Sci Fi Channel wrecked my books by Ursula K. Le Guin http://www.slate.com//id/2111107/

Frankenstein's Earthsea by Ursula K. Le Guin http://locusmag.com/2005/Issues/01LeGuin.html

Also, Harlan Ellison, who was involved with the Sci Fi channel's startup, has made various anti-Sci Fi channel comments "here and there". Though I cannot speak for him, and I can't find the ones I was hoping to find, I did find this:

Harlan Ellison's Watching... by Harlan Ellison http://harlanellison.com/buzz/bw157h.htm

Point being that the dissatisfaction I feel is real, beyond my own personal opinions, and even fantasy and science fiction authors feel it too. --R (edited lightly, Aug 2, 08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.36.4 (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I actualy loved the channel, It was broadcasted in South Africa via DSTV to DSTV satelite subscribers and then stopped for no particular reason. It was the only thing I watched on TV, other generes never interested me since this was different, i felt more at "home". Now i just dont watch the thing anymore and keep myself busy on the PC & Internet. Fantasy has been going on for a long time, fairy tales etc, stories of magic and wonder, when you look at it, In those days Fantasy was there Science Fiction. But I like the idea of combining old fantasy ideas with modern science fiction ideas it gives it a "timeline" of its own reality.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanainternational (talk • contribs) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Name

Approximately five months ago, this article was moved from Sci Fi Channel (United States) to SCI FI (United States) to SCI FI without any discussion nor consensus on the move. I strongly feel that SCI FI violates Wikipedia's naming conventions as it uses a stylization of the official name of Sci Fi. This article should either be moved back to Sci Fi Channel (United States), or if channel has been officially dropped from the US version, then moved to Sci Fi (United States). It should not, however, remain at SCI FI. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be Sci Fi Channel (United States). First, it shouldn't be all capitals, as "SCI FI" is not some acronym. I've only seen a few instances on scifi.com where they actually use the all CAPS version, and it's never when identifying the actual channel, but other products, and even then I think they abandon the caps after. It also contradicts the rest of the article, that doesn't write it in all CAPS. You cannot have Sci Fi, that's taken. Since I've seen it identified as "Sci Fi Channel" quite a bit, I would assume that "Channel" is part of its identifying name. Move it back to "Sci Fi Channel (United States)", so that it doesn't give preference to the American version of the channel over the rest. This is an english speaking Wikipedia, not an American Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I prefer(ed) the old Sci Fi Channel (United States), but I don't feel very strong about this issue. – sgeureka t•c 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I would support moving the article back to Sci Fi Channel (United States). I've linked to this in citation templates, but I don't keep it on my watchlist, so I wasn't aware of the move. I think that Bignole argued it well; the original title clarifies the topic pretty solidly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't notice it either until a question came up in a GA review about me switching between Sci Fi and Sci-Fi and I came to see how it was written here. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I support the move too. This page was on my watchlist when it was moved (and IIRC, I was the one who moved it from SCI FI (United States) to here), but I never really did anything about it and later took it off my watchlist for unrelated reasons. —Dinoguy1000 18:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
As per consensus here I moved the article back to its old name. Regards SoWhy 06:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bringing up the title again should it be one word? Written as SciFi? Thats what I thought it always was. --Buritanii (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say no. It used to be written Sci-Fi, but now its written as Sci Fi, including by Sci Fi itself. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I realized that later. It is Sci Fi. My bad. --Buritanii (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

According to SCI FI's *own press release* announcing the name change to Syfy, SCI FI is referred to as SCI FI Channel, in all caps. [6] Jason.cinema (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is completely irrelevant. Per Wikipedia guidelines, we use Sci Fi, normal caps, not all caps. Stop changing this and other articles to go against these guidelines. You've been warned enough. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. So now Wikipedia ignores articles in which facts are stated and proved relevant. Just wanted to be clear.Jason.cinema (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia has always ignored text stylization and special capitalizations like that except in a few rare instances. It has nothing to do with "fact" but with Wikipedia's style guidelines and writing methodology. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
If you'd like to argue the specific guideline (or at least read it), it's over thataway. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Redux: SyFy

Ha! You're both wrong! The article will be renamed to SyFy instead! WTF? Dr. Cash (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if we want to be accurate, it'll be renamed Syfy, as it's spelled in Syfy's own press release on Syfy.com http://www.syfy.com/press.html Jason.cinema (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If, and only if, Sci Fi actually goes through with the name change in July. Considering the rather large amount of derisiveness in fan responses so far, they may change their mind :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Except in their recent press releases they seem to be deliberately and loudly alienating their fanbase. They want to distance themselves from the stereotype of the "sci-fi geek" and re-brand themselves in one fell swoop. I'm not really sure who they expect to watch the new network, but it's going to be interesting. From http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/03/sci_fi_channel_aims_to_shed_ge.php
“The name Sci Fi has been associated with geeks and dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their basements with video games and stuff like that, as opposed to the general public and the female audience in particular,” said TV historian Tim Brooks, who helped launch Sci Fi Channel when he worked at USA Network.
Mr. Brooks said that when people who say they don’t like science fiction enjoy a film like “Star Wars,” they don’t think it’s science fiction; they think it’s a good movie.
“We spent a lot of time in the ’90s trying to distance the network from science fiction, which is largely why it’s called Sci Fi,” Mr. Brooks said. “It’s somewhat cooler and better than the name ‘Science Fiction.’ But even the name Sci Fi is limiting.”
Mr. Howe said going to Syfy will make a difference.
“It gives us a unique word and it gives us the opportunities to imbue it with the values and the perception that we want it to have,” he said.
Also, worth noting that "Syfy" is an STD in Polish.74.201.136.2 (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
What's going to happen to SCI FI Magazine when Sci Fi Channel becomes SyFy? AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering its only one line as is, I've already redirected it back here. Presumably they will rename it, but who knows. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Worth noting that Syfy is an STD in Polish? How is that relevant for the English languaged wikipedia? Cloud02 (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I think he meant that in a rhetorical sense, not realizing that there are better uses for a Talk page than recycling a joke from Penny Arcade.--MythicFox (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the topic at hand, it would be highly appropriate to note the controversy surrounding the "rebranding" to Syfy -- such as discussed in these sources:

and plenty more --HidariMigi (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Only if they are reliable sources. Generally, blogs are not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that if you'd bothered check into those cites, you'd see that they are more than qualified sources from journalists working in media/business. The first is from a writer for Broadcasting & Cable magazine, the industry standard; the second comes from Televisionary, an award-winning online news site; BNet's Geoffrey James is a well-published author and journalist; the last is from media reporter James Hibberd, writing for The Hollywood Reporter.-- HidariMigi (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
They are still blog postings, none of which actually speak about the "controversy" but only fan reaction and repeating fan quotes which doesn't speak to anything beyond "some fans don't like the new name". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Before you reply, perhaps you should actually read what you're replying about. These are not "blog postings" in the sense of random Internet denizen writing about their navel. Rather, they are media/business sites, whose staff write updates and news items that show up in style of blogs-- in that they are informal-- but they are no less news reporting. Please learn to tell the difference. Many, many media outlets now use "blog-style" reports, but that doesn't discount them as reliable sources. To wit:
  1. Sources the claim about "syfy" being Polish slang: "Kib Bibens, COO of the ABC Language Exchange in New York confirmed to B&C that “Syfy”-the name Sci-Fi channel has adopted as part of its recent re-brand-is in fact Polish slang for syphilis."
  2. An extensive article on the discussion Sci Fi President David Howe held with reporters -- the fullest account you'll find-- which includes pertinent background about the controversy from the network's viewpoint, and the reasoning for the selection of the name.
  3. Granted, writer Geoffrey James' entry is an opinion piece, but it offers the business perspective that the new moniker will actually make it more difficult for ad execs to sell advertising.
  4. THR reports on the response to the name in various outlets, noting, "But it's the kind of backlash Sci Fi doesn't exactly need right now. While most basic cable networks have seen their ratings growing year over year, Sci Fi has flatlined among adults 18-49, swinging between a 0.4 and a 0.5 quarterly average for the past three years." --HidariMigi (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the negative reaction to rebranding ought be part of the article. I have restored part of my prior post which includes cites from Advertising Age and Variety, reliable sources both. SixFourThree (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

Outer Limits

Any particular reason this show was omitted from any mentioning in this article? The Outer Limits has been a particularly prominent series on Sci Fi in the past, and while I haven't watched the channel in a couple years, I'm willing to bet it still aires. I mean, hasn't it been on Sci Fi since forever? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.215.89 (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lame Anime List (again)

This is what I posted on this talk page (When I saw the list of anime shows in the list of Sci-Fi shows, I never saw any of the ones that aired on ani-monday, such as Noein, Tactics, Ninja Scroll (censored version), Tokko, Straight Jacket, and other anime shows that aired on that Sci-Fi block! Why not?!?), and I was expecting a comment from someone, not have it deleted by someone! I asked if someone would be kind and add those episodes (and perhaps other shows I forgot to mention) in the list of shows aired on the Sci-fi Channel. If you won't, then I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.119.194 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The article formerly had a complete list of anime that has been aired as a part of Ani-Monday (and Anime on Tuesdays), but the list was inappropriate for various reasons for this article and was removed. An incomplete list (which has many more titles from the older anime blocks) can be found on List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 03:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What's going to happen to "SCI FI Magazine"?

Exactly what's going to happen to "SCI FI Magazine" when Sci Fi Channel becomes Syfy? AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

How would anyone here know? Unless and until they say something either in the magazine or to the media, no one will know. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
As an update, thus far Syfy is still referring to it as Sci Fi Magazine. Sci Fi wire has also retained its name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Craig Engler (Syfy Digital Media VP)'s Twitter page - @Syfy -, both SCI FI Wire and SCI FI Magazine will retain their current names. Jason.cinema (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have the logo for Sci Fi Channel from 2000? There was an SVG version of the logo a while back, until the logo section got unnecesarilly removed, but I can't find the 2000 logo anywhere. Gage (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The logo section was not "unnecessarily removed" it was removed because it violates WP:NONFREE, and it will continue to be removed as such. There is no critical, sourced commentary on the various logos, and just including an image gallery just to show the history violates Wikipedia policy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

One of these two is the 1999 Logo

http://www.marty.com.au/images/stories/scifi/syfy-channel-logo-oldschool-scifi-network-02.png

http://www.areavoices.com/wrestling/images/thumbnail/scifi.jpg

-Chris9277, thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris9277 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The second logo is from Sci Fi UK, before they were owned by NBC Universal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.79.8.76 (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct use of "Sci Fi" and "Syfy"

Somebody changed every use of "Sci Fi" to "Syfy" resulting in some pretty ridiculous and incorrect statements like "The company's website, Syfy.com, launched in 1995". "Syfy.com" did NOT launch in 1995, "Scifi.com" did. "Syfy.com" did not exist then. Similarly "In the early 1990s, Syfy aired several anime films" is wrong because "Syfy" did not exist then, "Sci Fi" did. And it continues, "it was announced that anime would be returning to Syfy starting June 11, 2007", 'In 2006, Syfy began airing several non-sci-fi programs", "In April 1996 it began appearing exclusively on The Dominion as part of a partnership with Syfy" and so on. These are all clearly incorrect. I corrected these glaring errors becaue the appropriate context should be used. Statements should reflect the situation at the time so using "Sci Fi" for pre July 2009 is correct, using "syfy" is not. My corrections have now been reverted,[7], supposedly for reasons of consistency. There is no consistency in introducing obvious errors into the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I've restored all the pre-July 2009 uses of SciFi to the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Disagree and changed back. In company articles, we use the current name throughout the article, except as part of the historical section up to the point of the name change. This is done in FA/GA level articles and there is certainly no reason not to do it here. The only glaring issue was with the website which has been corrected. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Except that you're still changing historical references. Perhaps we should open a RfC on this, as you seem to be the only one (right now) who's insisting on wholesale removal of the original name. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The first person who changed the name in the article did a wholescale search replace. If you feel some specific instances should remain Syfy, let's discuss those issues rather than wholescale changing every reference back. Syfy is now the channel/company's name, so it is what should be used throughout the article. The only references I changed were press releases, which can be changed back without changing the text references. I've gone ahead and changed those and rewrote some sections to deal with the issue. Will that work for everyone? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You're still missing the point. The correct historical context should be used. Articles talking about historical figures don't refer to them as "the late" because they're dead now. They refer to them as they were when they were alive. Use of "Sci Fi" here is no different. At the time of the various occurrences the channel was called "Sci Fi" so that is how it should be referred to. Statements such as "Syfy has aired anime programming off and on throughout its history" are quite ridiculous. Syfy's history is just today. In 2008, Syfy didn't average a 1.0 Household rating, Sci Fi did. Syfy has never managed any rating because it didn't exist until today. What you're suggesting is like saying "The late President John F Kennedy was assasinated", implying that somebody assasinated a dead president. It makes no sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Syfy is not a person, it is a company. The COMPANY's channel aired anime. The company's history did not begin today. The article is about the company. For consistency, we refer to it as its current name except in the historical section where we are discussing its move from one name to another. In all other sections, refusing to refer to it by its proper name seems more like an issue of trying to deny the name changed. HGTV is referred to as HGTV, not Home and Garden Television until it officially switched to HGTV. Syfy = Sci Fi whether people like it or not.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No, the article is about a television channel owned by a company, not about the company itself. The channel called SciFi aired anime, the channel called Syfy did not because "Syfy" was owned by somebody else at the time. Calling the channel Syfy even when Syfy was owned by somebody else is like denying the channel was ever called Sci Fi and implying it was the other Syfy that aired the programs. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Syfy was not owned by someone else. Syfy did not exist as a channel before Sci Fi changed its name. The article is about both the company and the channel, as each are fairly independent.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
"Syfy" was most certainly in use well before NBC decided to use it and had to purchase syfy.com. There are links in the article referencing this. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about individuals or companies, historical context should be maintained, which is why pre-July 2009 historical references, such as those I've already identified should refer to "Sci Fi". Based on the number of editors who have changed references in the article back to "Sci Fi", it seems that consensus is building against you on this but maybe we should go to RfC as MikeWazowski suggested if you're not willing to budge. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Syfy did not exist as a channel, which is the only context that matters. Its existing as a minor local business and the like is irrelevant for the article. The dates provide the historical context and both the lead and the history already clearly note that the channel was spelled Sci Fi before July 7, 2009. I honestly don't see why people are finding this such a big deal. Its not like the name changed, its pronounced the same, the only thing they did was change the spelling! As I've already noted, my use of SyFy throughout is consistent with both other business articles where businesses have changed their name, including GA and FA level articles, and with other similar issues such as articles on foreign media where we use the English name throughout except in the lead where we note it was published as X in its home country. I'm talking peer reviewed articles where this would certainly have been brought up if it would have been more proper to use the "historical" name based only on context. We don't change the name based on "context" of the sentence. An RfC may be the only way to go, since we're beyond a 30. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia not a corporate website. There is no need to change the info that millions of readers are familiar with just because of the whim of some corporate blowhards (who will be fired soon enough and the name reverted anyway). People know what Sci-Fi means. Nobody cares about SyFy, other than making a note about the company's disastrous decision nothing else is needed to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.132.165 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 28 September 2009
Yes, this is an encyclopedia. We present information that can be reliably sourced. The name change is such a piece of information - and, in fact, it can be reliably sourced directly to the company itself, which is more than can be said for a lot of the information Wikipedia contains. Whether the name will be changed back or not is immaterial, as is the reason the name was changed (and saying it's "the whim of some corporate blowhards" is original research, regardless of how likely it may be). If the name does get changed back, we will document this as well, with more reliable sources to back the new information up. Until then, I'd kindly ask that you go complain on a forum or blog somewhere instead of on Wikipedia. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes clearly the article on the channel itself should note this change. However going thru and changing all of the legacy information is not required and in fact a bad idea. If you don't like to read my comments, then I'd kindly ask that you go complain somewhere else yourself, buddy.24.4.132.165 (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The information gets changed in other articles where relevant. I personally have not been making the change, except in the list of programs Syfy has aired. And, on a more personal note, I really don't care what Syfy chooses to call itself, as long as it continues airing Ani-Monday - that's all I watch it for, anyways. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?

Surely, for balance purposes, this article could include some criticism of the Sly-Fly channel's Saturday B-movies? I know they have produced a few decent films, but many are truly awful.—RJH (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The criticism of the films is mainly film specific and already covered in the individual articles. For balance, it needs to include both sides, though, not just criticism. I've seen one or two articles covering the movies as a whole mentioned in some of those films, but would need to find them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the fact that they air "Pro Wrestling" when there is no science fiction content in that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.157.32 (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct use of "Sci Fi" and "Syfy" in other articles

When I say "other articles" I am thinking mostly of the pages for television programs related in some way or ways to the channel; however I mean to address the subject in general, as it applies anywhere in Wikipedia.

I finished writing a lengthy discussion inquiry on the use of "Sci Fi" versus "Syfy" for the Torchwood talk page. The article briefly relates episodes of Torchwood aired on BBC America as being generally less edited than those of Doctor Who broadcast by Sci Fi Channel. I wasn't sure whether "Sci Fi Channel" should be altered to "Syfy" because those episodes of Doctor Who were edited and aired prior to the name change. When I had my post all typed out, I re-read it and realized I had spent several paragraphs and a great deal of time on a trivial detail, more or less completely unrelated to the Torchwood article, and that a discussion about the Syfy re-branding would be entirely out of place.

I think it makes the most sense to bring the conversation here; even though its the place intended to talk about improving the Syfy article specifically, which happens to be the ONLY page specifically excluded. Ultimately, I have the following questions:

1. Should there be an active effort to change "Sci Fi Channel" to "Syfy" across Wikipedia?

2. When, if ever, should "Sci Fi" be left as it is? Only when the difference is to-the-point, such as when mentioning the re-branding itself? What about things entirely contained before the change of names? For example, consider this sentence from the article, Battlestar Galactica (2004 series): "The series first aired as a three-hour miniseries in December 2003 on the Sci Fi network and ran for four seasons thereafter, ending its run on March 20, 2009."

3. Is it ever appropriate (or perhaps a good idea) to include one name or the other parenthetically, such as in the first sentence of this article: "Syfy (formerly known as the Sci Fi Channel)...". Would it ever make sense to use the style "Syfy (previously known as Sci Fi)" or "Syfy (known as Sci Fi prior to July 7, 2009)" instead of "the Sci Fi Channel (now known as Syfy)" or "Sci Fi (known as Syfy since July 7, 2009)", or vice versa?

I'm sure I haven't included everything I meant to, so please ask questions of your own or answer ones I should have asked. And holler if you know a better place for this topic to go. Invisigoth841 (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No, an active effort is not needed. Here is actually where the whole historical use discussed above actually comes into play. As per what is done with other companies/channels, refer to it by the name it was at the time the series aired. So most of the tyime, that will be Sci Fi channel. If, however, the series is still running but started before the name, such as Eureka, then either include a one sentence note that Sci Fi rebranded itself to Syfy, or use something like "the series premiered on Syfy, then called the Sci Fi channel, on X where it continues to air." New series that premiere on Syfy should, of course, use Syfy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Should there be an active effort to change "Sci Fi Channel" to "Syfy" across Wikipedia?

Well, just about every single link to www.scifi.com that is in wikipedia is a dead link. I ran a quick search, and it brings up more than 5100 pages on just the english language wiki that will need to be re-edited. Much as I'd like to boost my edit count up there, it will be a large undertaking. Some of the pages are on archive.org, some are not. Tangurena (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of "Sci Fi Channel" in the Ratings section

At the time of this writing, the first sentence of the Ratings section reads:

"In 2008, Syfy, then the Sci Fi Channel, averaged a 1.0 Household rating..."

I believe that the first sentence should read as such:

"In 2008, the Sci Fi Channel (now Syfy) averaged a 1.0 Household rating..."

I believe it should be written like this because it was not called Syfy last year, it was the Sci Fi Channel. The wording of this sentence better conveys the history of the channel, as it was not changed to Syfy until a few days ago. The channel hasn't changed ownership or anything, it's still the same. It's just changed names. Worded the other way, it still conveys the name change, but having the old name set after the new title puts more emphasis on the new title rather than the fact that it wasn't called Syfy back then. I have made a change of this nature twice. My first one did not even mention the name change, which is why I made the second revision to better reflect that. It has since been reverted for the reasoning that the "article is about SyFy, so sentence reflects this better as is." The article is STILL about the channel, but when the ratings were gathered, the channel was not called Syfy. The new sentence better reflects that the change is a recent one by putting the old name first, thereby drawing the reader's attention to the fact that when the ratings were gathered, it was still called the Sci Fi Channel.

You may believe this is a somewhat trivial matter, but I believe it is necessary to better convey the nature of the change and the ratings that were gathered. Also, if you want, it can be set off with commas rather than parentheses, if you think it would look better. -- Interrupt_feed (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The former sentence is better written, flows better, and remains focused on the subject. The article is about Syfy, which was once known was the Sci Fi Channel, not the Sci Fi Channel now known as Syfy. As you noted, it has not changed anything, only names, wich is why it is properly written to focus on the actual channel itself, noting the name change, rather than focusing on the old name, first. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Syfy Original Movies

Syfy is now referring to these films as Syfy Original Movies [8], therefore this category should be renamed to reflect that change. Jason.cinema (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on that site says "Syfy Original Movies" - the category was already misnamed, because they were called Sci Fi Original Pictures, without the channel. A rename request is already in place to fix this. The movie air time is now called "Syfy Saturday" but that is not the same as the actual "Sci Fi Pictures" movie making area. Need better clarification as to whether they have renamed the actual moving making unit or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's an example of them calling their movies "Syfy Original Movies" - the page for the airing of their upcoming Syfy Original Movie Hellhounds. [9] - as well as the schedule for the airing on their site which also refers to it, and all of their other movies airing that day, as Syfy Original Movies. [10]]. Jason.cinema (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The first link does not actually use the phrase "Syfy Original Movie". The second one does, however it still isn't clear if that is just the airing name or if they have actually renamed the division within the company as well. I'm going to try emailing them to see if they clarify. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Craig Engler, Syfy's VP of Digital Media, has a Twitter account where he's answering questions about all things Syfy - http://www.twitter.com/syfy I think that would be a better way to contact Syfy, rather than an email, as those things are usually generic autoresponses. Jason.cinema (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


Someone add in taht their "movies" are so crap the make sure to put the logo in a very out of the way place to not put people off in the video store! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.57.130 (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Anti-American?

i wouldn't have thought that sci fi/syfi was "anti-American", yet it states that in the opening sentence of the article...if someone can explain to me how this is supposed to sound, that would be great. as of now, it makes me think of anti-American protests in other countries...Osmo250 (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't, the article was vandalized. Vandalism has been removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad Link?

The president of Scifi is David Howe, and it links to an article on -a- David Howe, but even a cursory glance at that article gives me great doubts that its the same guy. Hewhorulestheworld (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference Link 23 [ http://scifiwire.com/2009/03/sci-fi-president-dave-how.php ] is dead. It is this same David Howe link, I believe. Needs to be removed or updated.CynicSatirist (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager on Syfy

Will Syfy ever acquire the broadcast rights to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager sometime in the near future? AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No since they are still being showing in syndication on other stations. Also, you will find your keys are in the jeans you left in the bathroom, the winning lottery numbers are 4,8,12,23,and 40. When you meet Jennifer tell her "the blue one". How the hell would anyone here know. Why don't you ask them what their plans are?
Place these questions to CBS-Paramount Domestic Television Distribution, or perhaps even National Amusements. This isn't the place to discuss that. Perhaps a Star Trek forum, or even the Star Trek Wiki, would be the place. Apple8800 (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What's going to happen to WWE NXT (TV series) on Syfy?

What's going to happen to WWE NXT (TV series) on Syfy? Will it be canceled or moved to another station? AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please direct these questions to the powers-that-be over to NBC Universal, or whatever the company's name is now. This is NOT the place to ask. Apple8800 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


Critics?

Good source: http://www.denofgeek.com/television/784179/does_syfy_really_love_scifi.html

Gonioul (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Disappointment in the downward spiral of content since the name change would be an understatement. Continued delays and cancellations of new shows for the BSG re-imagined series has generated an aversion hurting what few good shows remain. Content has reverted to more an more cheapo B to C grade reality based ventures leaving it on par with the home shopping network in terms of cable value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.118.203 (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this previous statement and I've seen it echoed all over the web (damn I should get a link). SyFy killed SciFi. They've cancelled so many shows that there is hardly any scifi anywhere. 86.195.171.87 (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of station name

I thought "Syfy" was meant to be pronounced the same as "sci-fi". Isn't it? AlexanderKaras (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Gawd, whoever is in charge of this station are idiots. Goddamn network decay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.56.129 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Following their FAQ is has to be pronounced like "sci-fi". That would be /ˈsaɪfaɪ/, as far as i know. Quiss42 (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"to the horror and shock of many fans"

OK I know you're mad that they're canceling SG:U but seriously, find a source or these weasel words are gonna get taken down. Alphachimera (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Syfy letting viewers create new movie

What happened to this project? Is the movie actually getting made? And are viewers really being given any real input? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Importance

Is it alright to move the importance for "Low" to "Mid" on the importance scale, because Syfy is an international TV chanel, not a TV show. James3167 (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The announced projects lists are not notable

The large sections of this article devoted to announced projects seems to be mere trivia with no real purpose for being here. Certainly programs that were actually produced and had some influence on television or sci-fi in general or brought fame for the channel would all be more signficant that shows that have not been aired. The "Announced, unrealized projects" section is especially bad as we already know those never will be aired. DreamGuy (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'd have to respectfully disagree. It's a window into creative thinking and corporate decision-making as to what projects get chosen and which do not — andt this is particularly true of the ones that get so far along their pipeline that the network feels confident enough to announce them.
Additionally, in the cases naming specific creators such as Martin Scorsese, this is biographical material that confirms those creators interest and involvement in certain themes, genres and producing partners. This is historically valuable material.
Trivia is information for its own sake; fancruft is information primarily of interest to fans who spend a great deal of time and energy on their particular hobby interest. This, on the other hand, is historical background pertinent to any reasonable understanding of the television industry in general and of this network in particular. I'm sure sure one can say, in that respect, that only produced projects are significant. What goes unproduced says just as much about the television industry and the people involved, over and above the value of this material as part of creators' biographies. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Who is Sy and why do we care about his fy?

I never watch this channel so I did not notice the change until it was critizied on the Big Bang Theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6002:6:59F6:C5E:9A0D:4F (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool story bro. Why bother to make a post pimping BBT here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.193.80 (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Programming section

In December, an editor unilaterally removed two entire sections of pertinent, historical data, claiming it was "outdated." By that claim, ANY historical data is "outdated." Please see WP:Recent. I understand it was a bold edit, but removing two entire sections is something that needs to be discussed first — and per WP:BRD, it's bold (done), revert (done), discuss (as I've begun here). --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC) 

== the Sci Fi Channel redirect ==

For reasons unknown, Sci Fi channel was redirecting to Syfy Universal, even though the 1988-2009 history of the Channel is chronicled solely in Syfy. Whoever created the redirect apparently targeted Syfy to Syfy Universal at the same time as creating a redirect of Sci Fi Channel (United States) to Syfy. This distinction is meaningless, because there never was a "Sci Fi Channel (UK)" or "Sci Fi Channel (Latvia) or any "Sci Fi Channel (Not US). -- all foreign satellites had other names. Anyone seeking "Sci Fi Channel" will most likely be seeking the 1988-2009 history of Syfy. Bustter (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sci Fi Channel redirect

It seems obvious [to me at least] that anyone searching Sci Fi Channel will be seeking the 1988-2009 history of that entity, which is contained in the article Syfy. Someone had Sci Fi Channel redirecting to Syfy Universal which bears little relation to the entity known as the Sci Fi Channel. Whoever created this redirect also made a redirect of Sci Fi Channel (United States) to SyFy, but this is pretty meaningless as the international satellites did not carry the name Sci Fi Channel -- there was no Sci Fi Channel (UK) or Sci Fi Channel (Latvia), no Sci Fi Channel (not United States) . Bustter (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My point above is, I changed the redirect so that Sci Fi Channel now targets Syfy. Bustter (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:DayleLucy101 that the old logo is historically important, just as it would be for any TV network. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Kyrpton prequel series announced, created by David S. Goyer.

Here's the source. It will air on the SyFy network. 2601:C:780:234:B027:24E4:1F98:A860 (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Article lead

This article is primarily about the American channel, certainly as evidenced by the lead's second paragraph. It was never known as "SF" in the US, and in fact was only known as SF in one country and only for a short time. That makes it trivia in terms of WP:LEAD. which is supposed to summarize the most signiciant content and important milestones. Adding a context-less fringe name in the lead without explanation creates the impression that the American can was known as SF at some point. That is clearly inaccurate.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 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: Not moved, opposes look to be rough consensus (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Syfy → Syfy (U.S. TV network) – I'm sure people would argue that this page is the primary topic, and I can understand that. However, considering the amount of channels named "Syfy" at this point, I think this page needs to be moved accordingly. 67.87.222.82 (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 17:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition, if the move happens, Syfy should be redirected to Syfy Universal for all its channels. 67.87.222.82 (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. No indication the American network isn't the primary topic, and it's safe to assume it is since it is the parent network for the other SyFys. Calidum ¤ 02:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose — current holder of Syfy is the primary topic. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – the U.S. Syfy is the primary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:17, 18 August 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.

The channel's name is now capitalized. Revisions should be made to this article

This is per NBCUniversal's press release announcing the channel's rebrand back to science fiction and its fandom.

http://www.nbcumv.com/news/syfy-“reboots”-ahead-25th-anniversary?network=33143

What does it stand for? If it's an initialism, we'd refer to it in all caps throughout the article. If it's just a styling, we mention it once in the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2017

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 DrStrauss talk 06:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


Syfy → SYFY – The name appeared in capital letters this past Monday. AdamDeanHall (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2017 (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.
  • That last request is reasonable. I will attempt to create the requested redirects, though it probably won't happen for a few days. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Announced series/pilots section

Do we really need announced series or pilots on this article? I feel like it is adding too much to the article. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:8BB:55F:E0BA:1473 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Including forthcoming shows that have been ordered to series is certainly reasonable, IMO – in other words, those series are certain to air at some point, and is reasonable under WP:CRYSTALBALL. However, including those that are simply TV pilot orders (only) is not-notable, and should not be included. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
However, this is better covered at List of programs broadcast by Syfy, and so should probably removed from this article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done – I have removed that section, as per my comments above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Article and redirect moves

I have moved a number of redirects and the linked article Syfy Universal (formerly "Syfy (TV channel)"). All redirects that concern the U.S. channel, or are from legacy titles (eg SciFi...), now target Syfy. Editors should take care when retitling sections to repair broken redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syfy/Archive_1&oldid=1211679772"